Shaft Sink Share Discussion Threads

[buywell2] 10/7/2014 07:52

The dilution to existing SHFT shareholders from any meaningful cash raising , and I guess only a Chinese outfit or some such might be remotely interested will almost certainly now shaft shaft shareholders thrice backwards.

see my 8p call post a few weeks back now about to get hit today


Shaft Sinkers Holdings Plc Financing Discussions


10 July 2014



Financing Discussions

The Company has endured a challenging first half of the year as a result of previously announced issues related to South Africa and the continuing cost of litigation arising from the outstanding dispute with EuroChem.

As announced on 19 May 2014, the Company has been pursuing a number of initiatives to address cash flow issues including the deferral of non-essential expenditure, the disposal of assets and surplus property and improvements to the recovery cycle of receivables.

Since May the Company's cash position has further deteriorated to the extent that it is has engaged with various parties regarding the urgent provision of new financing to satisfy near-term liquidity requirements. Negotiations with these parties relate to various financing methods, as well as the disposal of certain assets, and are continuing with the objective of preserving value for shareholders whilst also enabling the Company to continue trading.


buywell2 19 Jun'13 - 13:40 - 2069 of 2495 0 0 edit

If you check back you will see I called this down chartwise when it was circa 60p

Tried to save Hector some money as he had a mudslide near his house with subsequent value loss.

I try to save those less gifted in TA and Charts in the advfn community cash

But get lambasted more often than not

A cross I have got used to carrying

Don't bother answering I know it hurts



buywell2 24 Jun'14 - 12:33 - 2467 of 2494 0 1 edit

Nope

They are too busy flogging the photo-copiers and scanners to pay this months temp offices rent bill





buywell2 24 Jun'14 - 16:13 - 2469 of 2494 0 1 edit

Thanks for the hard work muckshifter

Legal costs might kill SHFT before though eh ?

[deltrotter] 10/7/2014 07:47

Shaft sunk?

[ammons] 10/7/2014 07:15

Cripes...............

[hedgehog 100] 09/7/2014 16:44

muckshifter 8 Jul'14 - 19:01 - 2489 of 2489 0 1
"... For example, do you deny that you wrote perhaps 50 posts supporting the dishonest Helmer drivel? ... "


You're again giving the impression that you're an egomaniac, by equating your OPINIONS with FACTS.

Your stated view of the Helmer article is just an opinion, which I disagree with.
So my disagreement with you is not evidence of dishonesty on my part.


And you're again showing your lack of awareness, by thinking that just because YOU know something (i.e. the precise nature of your work), EVERYONE must know it.


I've in the past suggested/asked re. you perhaps work for a rival to SHFT, as a possibility, because I and others don't believe that someone will devote hundreds of hours to attacking a company that they say they have, and never will have, an investment interest in, for no good reason.

But since the time that you have explained that you're not a miner, I have never said that you do the same type of work as SHFT.

The misunderstanding arose because you droned on relentlessly about what an expert you are on SHFT because of your work - so giving the impression that you worked in the same type of businss as SHFT.
But it transpires that you don't actually do the same type of work as SHFT, but rather a related type of work.

Several points:
1. If anyone was giving a false impression, it was you.
2. What the hell real difference does it make, in this context, if you do exactly the same type of work as SHFT, or a slightly different type of work to SHFT?! NONE!! Except to someone with an obsessive compulsive screw losse like you!!!
3. To the extent that I may have suggested that you do the same type of work as SHFT I was if anything slightly weakening my argument, rather than strengthening it. Because if I'd understood that you DIDN'T work in the same type of work as SHFT, I could have pointed out that that means that your claim to have an insiders's understanding of their business has less credibility that otherwise.

You suggest that your nickname of "Muckshifter" should make it obvious that you do a different type of work to Shaft Sinkers.
Well, excuse me, but was does Shaft Sinkers do?
It shifts muck (and I will admit rock as well!) out of the ground to create shafts and tunnels!!
I'm not a civil engineer, and I had never encountered the term "muckshifter" until I met you, so how am I supposed to have known what it means.

[muckshifter] 08/7/2014 19:01

A perfect example there of your dishonesty, Hedgehog. You say that I continually gave readers the impression that I worked in mining. Never, in any circumstances, have I made the slightest suggestion that I worked in mining or mining related work. On many occasions I have explained that I'm a muckshifter, not a miner. You deliberately ignored my explanations of what I do for months and months, posting regular attempts to discredit me by suggesting that I worked in mining.

So which of the points about your stupid posts, mentioned in 2486, are you denying then hedgehog?

For example, do you deny that you wrote perhaps 50 posts supporting the dishonest Helmer drivel?

Do you deny that you thought arbitration was a low cost mediation process?

Do you deny that you posted many, many, times that you expected the arbitration to be settled quickly?

Do you deny coming out with some rubbish about how it would have been difficult for the CEO of shft to buy more shares than he did because normal market size was 4000?

[hedgehog 100] 08/7/2014 18:31

On the contrary, I would never dream of posting dishonestly, but you definitely do.

The above post is an example of you misquoting, twisting things, quoting out of context, and making false statements.

For example, I try to make an explicit point of never using words like "will" or "would" which claim certainly about the future, because the future can never be certain.
I try to use words like "may" and "might", which are qualified.

In addition, you are the one who continually gave readers the false impression that you worked in mining, as opposed to mining-related work.

And you were bashing this share long before I was here.

I could go on and on, over ground that has been very well-covered already.

In conclusion, you are an idiot and a hypocrite.

Why have you never expressed any sadness about Hector having to set up a 'bile free' SHFT thread, because of the troll bile he was being subjected to, the like of which I have seen nothing like from the Iofina bear you call a troll?

[hedgehog 100] 08/7/2014 15:42

muckshifter 7 Jul'14 - 20:59 - 2485 of 2485 0 1
"Yet again hedgehog, you take your usual dishonest position, that anyone who disagrees with your view is a troll, ... "


Are you an egomaniac?

Since when do you constitute "anyone".

I don't think that you are a troll because you are disagreeing with me.
I think that you are a troll because you have, among other things, undertaken a virulent bashing campaign against SHFT, and repeatedly posted dishonestly.

[muckshifter] 07/7/2014 20:59

Yet again hedgehog, you take your usual dishonest position, that anyone who disagrees with your view is a troll, and anyone, however obnoxious, who posts something positive about a share you are pushing, is a "serious and intelligent" poster. I hope others have noticed the monotonous regularity with which this occurs in your posts.
Unfortunately for you, anyone who has read the shft boards over the last 18 months is aware of both the hopelessness of your predictions / forecasts, and the fact that my opinions have proved far more accurate. They are also aware that you have posted many times more posts than I have on shft. So if one of us is a troll, it isn't me.

And you still don't seem to understand that the shft dispute and the IMR dispute with Eurochem probably have no bearing on each other and are likely to be on a different basis. My point remains, as it always has been, that at the time of final negotiation and award of the Eurochem contract, IMR were the majority shareholder in shft (54% iirc), and had two IMR employees, one of whom was a fluent Russian speaker, as the top directors in shft.

I have also pointed out often enough that Eurochem may well regard the arbitration against shft as primarily a source of access to records which will be useful in their corruption action against IMR (including proving the overwhelming influence of IMR at the crucial time in the Eurochem contract negotiations), which, from the newspaper article, appears indeed to be the case, and the article makes clear that the Eurochem/ IMR case is not over yet! However, the arbitration is almost certainly based in terms of extra cost incurred in carrying out the work, on failure by the contractor, and I don't see how shft can hope to get out of that.

[hedgehog 100] 07/7/2014 19:49

Did I say I liked all of N3tleyLucas's postings? No, I did not.

But he did accurately forecast Iofina's downfall.

And the hypocrisy element is my real concern here: i.e. you complaining about trolling, when you are doing it yourself.


"Point 2, my posts on shft have been far more informative and accurate than yours ... "

Really, mate?

Well we've just had the first result in the EuroChem dispute, and it's first blood to me, isn't it.

It was you who insisted that SHFT was effectively being run as a subsidiary of IMR, while I disagreed, and pointed out that IMR didn't even have a controlling interest.

[buywell2] 07/7/2014 15:07

Palladium prices could be soon rising as deep PLAT mines get mothballed

Can't help but think strikes are going to be a yearly event despite what the mine owners think they have got agreements on.

Not many open cast PLAT opportunities left I would have thought


Ridge Mining , RDG was one of the last I believe bought by AQP




buywell2 27 Jul'12 - 18:13 - 15000 of 15001 0 0 edit










Aquarius .... not done too good has it ?




DavidHP 28 Jul'09 - 01:49 - 14974 of 14999

Why? Because we're now living through the greatest financial catastrophe in financial history... more money is going up in smoke, a bigger percentage of the world's wealth is subliming at this time than ever before. IMHobservation 1929 was smaller & less catastrophic (and yes I HAVE read Galbraith AND Kindleberger FYI!) than this and as equities were then, so they are now; ie. CHEAP! And then, as now, few could take advantage of that obvious bonanza of cheap stocks since most investors had had 22 shades of shab knocked out of them... I want as many AQP as I can get my pauperish mitts on for as little additional outlay as is humanly possible. If a few pennies now makes me a couple of quid 2yrs later... I'm filled with joy!

As for the rest...
In my experience, given the general level of hollowheadedness apparent in so-called official and financial services, perhaps the only sector of UK industry where those with the IQs of garden furniture can truly excel, it's the "strangers on a BB" who;

a) seem to know more about whats going on than those paid to know... (must be the DYOR ethos + the 22 shades!)

b) have little to gain/lose from the advice and so it tends to be more honest.


Other than pouring for hours over largely unintelligible reams of corporate gibberish which was written to be unintelligible, I find asking "strangers on a BB" *IS* DoingYOR... where the Y is *your*, as in that which you have discovered and, from the kindness of your claret-hardened heart, wish to share with mere me!
How do you DYOR? Remote viewing, perhaps?


As a shareholder of RDG, I only waste one share (or so it appears)... since my holding is amost exactly divisible by the conversion ratio.

The so called 'arbitrage' was a temporary affair and has now largely evaporated.
np

I will become, as we all will, Aquarius shareholders and so all is good in the world...

Rejoice and sing for the British summer is upon us.
My wellies are drying by the door as I write...

DYOLaundry


Been a bummer if you kept the shares

[muckshifter] 07/7/2014 14:58

Sorry buywell, I was distracted from responding to your post this morning, by dishonest rubbish, but I'm back home again now.

Who knows whether new mine owners would make any difference, it all depends on the price of platinum, which will be dependent on supply and demand.
But I do think that there is a distinct danger that the whole South African deep mining industry will suffer a prolongued hiatus in major item investment, where there are short term lower cost alternatives, because of the recent history of ever more regular militant union action.
The strength of South African deep mining and its ability to compete, often with international opencast operations, was historically based on abundant, cheap and "expendable" black labour, and that basis is now dissapearing, imho.
The current SA labour situation reinforces my previously stated opinion that deep mining will not be replacing opencast on any significant scale anytime soon, where there is any chance of finding further opencast opportunities.
The best way to consider the SA mining situation, imho, would be to think about the compound cost effect of drastic ongoing annual wage increases in the mining industry, as they seem to be becoming inevitable. In SA deep mining, labour costs will be of the order of 70% of production cost. In SA opencast mining, labour cost will be more like 10%. If you compound the increases on those cost percentages at 10% per annum on labour, you can see that deep mines will suffer an enormous cost disadvantage which will destroy many deep mines, and certainly prevent major investment in new shafts, imho.

A parallel which to some extent illustrates the point would be UK Coal, where the deep mine which produced the most coal, but had the most militant miners, was crying out for a new shaft for more than twenty years, until closure. The distance to the working face was accessed by extending underground infrastructure, expensed each year at a cost of £millions, and the cost and time for transporting coal and miners finally up to 14km underground at each end of their shift, was prefered by the management, rather than invest £100m in a new shaft over a period of perhaps 4 years. Can't see a twenty year hiatus in SA, but imho there will be one.

And I think shft's management saw that possibility. The emphasis on getting overseas work in their flotation document, and the more recent emphasis on "non mining" opportunities and changing the mix of work, in annual reports – ie. more work not related to shafts, shows that.

But in reality shft remains "a one trick pony" in the highest risk element of the high risk heavy civil engineering contracting field. That is, as I've pointed out many times, why imho, they only have one or perhaps two fully independent international competitors in the major shaft sinking field, and also why the best known single independent competitor (Redpath) is much more diversified in terms of both workload, and geographically.

So, if shft survive the current cash crisis, which I've been suggesting was on the way for a long time, and then survive the arbitration, which I now doubt, they still have an uphill road to travel for the forseeable future, imho.
Regards.

[muckshifter] 07/7/2014 12:05

Oh dear hedgehog, yet another dishonest attempt to discredit a poster who posts information and opinion which doesn't suit your purpose. What a pity you have no integrity, and very little understanding of the industry in which you have been pumping a high risk investment for the last 18 months.

You started out by posting, probably twenty posts on several threads , about me calling the posters on the "Iofina, Iodine, gas, water!! maybe Oil (Baaken)" thread, trolls. As usual this was a dishonest attempt to discredit me, and distract readers from my points about shft. I posted a couple of times that all anyone had to do to see the truth, ( ie. I was not calling serious posters trolls ) was read the post and those that surrounded it on that board. Obviously hedgehog, you eventually realised that you were vulnerable to people doing just that, and realising how dishonest your posts were, so you changed tack.

Next came a post from you stating that I had carried out a "pump and dump" campaign on Iofina, on the "Iofina, Iodine, gas, water...." thread (post 26276). Again a patently dishonest attempt to discredit a poster who posts things which don't suit you hedgehog, because you cannot refute points in my posts about shft. I then pointed out that posting twice (and I must admit I had forgotten my first post on that board – but HH had obviously read it), once mildly positively just after I had bought a few IOF shares, and again approx six months later a post which did not even mention IOF – it was about a poster deliberately annoying loads of serious posters, hardly compared with the approx 200 posts on probably a dozen threads / boards, all rabidly pumping shft, that you, hedgehog, had written during that same period. So, as usual, you changed tack. (Unfortunately, despite your huge pumping exercise on shft the share price kept going down, so you didn't get to the "dump" stage, if that was your intention, but you certainly pumped hard.)

So now we have the latest feeble, dishonest attempt to discredit me by you announcing the name of the poster who was deliberately annoying people on the Iofina etc thread, and saying that he was "a serious and intelligent poster". Effectively, you are acknowledging that your earlier barrage of posts was dishonest by posting that. So, if he was a "serious and intelligent" poster hedgehog, how did you identify him as the poster I was posting about when I wrote about the troll, because I didn't ever identify him by name?
Perhaps it was his post which contained a moving image of a man shagging a sheep which gave the game away (post 20 on the "Iofina" thread). Or the posts by other posters on the original thread clearly trying to decide what to do about his stream of disruptive one liners – they were arranging meetings to find a way of having a board without him, or the fact, clearly visible from reading his posts, that for every rare post he posted with serious useful content, he posted fifty or so purely disruptive ones.

And according to you, he "called the Iofina story far more accurately" than I did, did he?

I bought shares at £1 in January 2013, and sold at just under £2 in May 2013, iirc. Unlike you, I didn't write hundreds of posts desperately pumping the shares I bought, or explaining my thoughts before selling, as I never do, so perhaps you could explain that remark?

Yet again hedgehog, anyone who suits your purpose becomes an ally – in this case the person who constantly disrupted a serious board becomes in your words a "serious and intelligent poster". That is entirely appropriate and normal for you. Your attempts to discredit any serious poster who disagrees with you, and distract people from the points they make, by disruptively and dishonestly posting twisted versions of their history, and desperate support for completely dishonest journalistic articles / authors such as the Helmer article, together with disruptive posters, destroys your credibility with any intelligent poster who can be bothered to follow the stories, however many dozens of times you repeat them and your accompanying proclamations about your "honesty".

Pity you don't know enough about shft, the industry it's part of, contract terms within that industry, dispute procedures that apply, or anything else for that matter, to be able to contribute to intelligent debate about the company.

[hedgehog 100] 05/7/2014 20:46

muckshifter 28 May'14 - 16:05 - 2454 of 2477 0 1
"Well my apologies to all, as I did not remember that earlier post, on IOF. So that's two posts I made on Iofina boards, as far as I can remember, one of which does not even mention Iofina, and certainly has nothing to do with being for or against any serious poster. It was a post about someone who was deliberately goading serious posters. ... "


Muckshifter,

I've been checking that Iofina thread more fully, and I presume that you are referring to N3tleyLucas.

However, I can see clearly from his postings that he was a serious and intelligent poster, and moreover one who called the Iofina story far more accurately than you did.

Shame on you for trying to discredit him by referring to him as a troll, costing Iofina investors massively when its share price collapsed by about 90%.

[muckshifter] 02/7/2014 20:28

TechnoFiend,
I suspect that this ties in very well with points I was making a year ago. My expectation remains that the arbitration and the court action are on an entirely different basis. Eurochem are obviously well aware that they will not get the huge extra cost they endured back from shft, because shft just don't have the money, but from IMR, they could - hence the asset freezing action against IMR.

The court action might have been the scheduled appeal against the freezing order, although I thought that was supposed to be May. In any case, I don't think it's over, and the point in the newspaper report about a Eurochem spokesperson saying that they had obtained lots of important new evidence for the case is exactly what I suggested would come from discovery of documents in the arbitration, and was one reason why I suggested the arbitration would not be settled early, even though it is obvious that shft could not pay if they lose.

So I don't think either shft or IMR are off the hook.
Regards.

[technofiend] 02/7/2014 19:33

Thanks DPEng.

"Russia's third-largest fertilizer maker, EuroChem, said it would continue to fight in a Dutch court against International Mineral Resources, or IMR, a day after the court dismissed its 660 million euro ($900 million) claim for bribery and fraud.

.....This additional evidence would now be submitted for the next stage of the Dutch court case, the spokeswoman said in an emailed statement."

I am assuming this is good news for SHFT. Anyone have more details on how many stages the arbitration process involves?

How can a claim be 'dismissed' and then continue on?

[dpeng] 27/6/2014 00:20

Dutch Court Dismisses Russian Fertilizer Firm's $900 Million Fraud and Bribery Suit

hxxp://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/dutch-court-dismisses-russian-fertilizer-firms-900-million-fraud-and-bribery-suit/502546.html

[muckshifter] 26/6/2014 10:56

The ending of the platinum miners strike in SA is probably good news for shft in the long term, but bad news in the short term because it puts substantial extra pressure on the company's cash situation over the next couple of months.
Regards.