Chatham Rock Phosphate - CRP

[elZorro]

Chatham Rock Phosphate (CRP) are a spin-out of Widespread Portfolios, and are in the same building as Glass Earth in Wellington. After the AUSIMM conference (where they presented), their share price has taken off threefold. So despite the unfortunate ticker, this could be an outfit to watch.


Chatham Rock Phosphate says market re-rating stock on value of prospects



Friday 2nd September 2011





Chatham Rock Phosphate, which has a prospecting permit to assess the potential for mining rock phosphate from the sea floor, says a doubling in its stock price over two weeks is likely to be investors recognising the potential of the venture.
Takaka-based CRP’s shares soared to as high as 33 cents on the NZAX alternative market today from 13 cents on Aug. 19. They recently traded down 6.3% at 30 cents, valuing the company at $15.2 million.
The share surge prompted the NZX to ask the company yesterday if it was still in compliance with disclosure rules or had market sensitive information that could account for the gains.
“We suggest that the recent increases in the CRP share price may simply reflect the market finally recognising the potential value of CRP,” managing director Chris Castle said in his response. “The rationale behind the potential value is a matter that CRP has repeatedly and thoroughly disclosed to the market for a significant period of time now.”
CRP, or Widespread Energy as it was then known, was granted a prospecting permit on the Chatham Rise last year to test whether the area contains an estimated 100 million tonnes of rock phosphate, which could be worth $28 billion. A successful mining operation could slash New Zealand’s costs for imported fertiliser.
The estimate comes from 30-year-old data derived from exploration work carried out by the government and companies such as Fletcher Challenge in the 1970s and 1980s.
CRP plans to raise capital and list on the Toronto Stock Exchange, which already has 19 listed fertiliser companies. It has had the project valued at $34 million, rising to $400 million if successfully executed.
(BusinessDesk)


A bit more background from their website. (http://rockphosphate.co.nz/news/archives/2011/05/20/chatham-rock-phosphate-limited-final-announcement-for-the-year-ended-31-march-2011/)

[percy]

Had a good laugh;director C.D. Castle. !!!!!!!!!!!! ?????????/ Yeah right.!!!!

[elZorro]

Fair enough Percy, it looks like a good idea in this case, but wouldn't want to see another HGD type scenario. I guess everyone deserves a bit of good luck once in a while, will keep an eye on it with a v.small holding.

[Sideshow Bob]

Why so many exclaimation marks Percy? Never come across him......

[percy]

Why so many exclaimation marks Percy? Never come across him......


I think you would be best to keep it that way.
Castle was a one time Brierley Investments employee.He went on to float his own investment company.Major investment was Regina Confectionary,Oamaru.
His investment record was/is very poor.
I would not invest in any company Castle was/is connected with.

[elZorro]

I think you would be best to keep it that way.
Castle was a one time Brierley Investments employee.He went on to float his own investment company.Major investment was Regina Confectionary,Oamaru.
His investment record was/is very poor.
I would not invest in any company Castle was/is connected with.

I found this article Percy, sounds like things were OK by around 2002.
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/c598f399/so-you-failed-so-what.html

[percy]

I found this article Percy, sounds like things were OK by around 2002.
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/c598f399/so-you-failed-so-what.html
elZorro,You did well to find that article.I thought it was an excellent read.

[Major von Tempsky]

Hear hear! Should be a compulsory read for everyone on Sharetrader.

Although one still must maintain a blacklist of fraudsters and idiots like Petricevic & &.

[elZorro]

A bit of competition perhaps.


L&M Group in new Chatham Rise phosphate questRoss Louthean — 3 February 2012
The L&M Group which figures strongly in petroleum exploration, coal seam gas, coal and gold mining is now joining the quest for seafloor phosphate deposits on Chatham Rise.
The company has formed Chatham Phosphate Ltd which it owns 90%, with the balance held by prospect vendor and veteran geoscientist Roger Gregg.
New Zealand Petroleum & Minerals has granted a permit on the rise, near the Chatham Islands and well east of Christchurch and it envelopes on three sides of the marine phosphate permit held by Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd (NZAX: CRP).
Chairman of the L&M Group, Geoff Loudon, said there are no set plans and the future development of the company because everything is in its infancy. Later, consideration could be given to whether Chatham Phosphate remains private or looks at an IPO.
Over the years Roger Gregg was involved in studies on the Chatham phosphorites.

[sailor1]

Certainly can't complain about the recent share price performance with these guys. They have now got some excellent solid cornerstone shareholders, progress is certainly being made towards the ultimate goal of mining the phosphate. They seem to have it all heading in the right direction. Just a note, Percy about your comments on Chris Castle. I am familiar with his past record with CharterCorp, 1987 and all that, but just ponder on this for a moment. He's a risk taker sure, but isn't that the way with people like this who are prepared to put their necks on the line? They don't always win. That's just the way it goes and if one were to survey randomly the propotion of very rich people who had once been bankrupt, and I don't believe Castle ever gotto those depths, then I'm sure you will find there would be a far greater % of ex bankrupts amongst the sample of the very wealthy than there would be from a random sample of the general population.

Good luck to Castle and Chatham Rock I say. There is a good chance they are on to a winner here and I'm very glad to be along for the ride. It's been a great one over the past couple of weeks and I think over the next couple of years there will be more good news.

[percy]

Certainly can't complain about the recent share price performance with these guys. They have now got some excellent solid cornerstone shareholders, progress is certainly being made towards the ultimate goal of mining the phosphate. They seem to have it all heading in the right direction. Just a note, Percy about your comments on Chris Castle. I am familiar with his past record with CharterCorp, 1987 and all that, but just ponder on this for a moment. He's a risk taker sure, but isn't that the way with people like this who are prepared to put their necks on the line? They don't always win. That's just the way it goes and if one were to survey randomly the propotion of very rich people who had once been bankrupt, and I don't believe Castle ever gotto those depths, then I'm sure you will find there would be a far greater % of ex bankrupts amongst the sample of the very wealthy than there would be from a random sample of the general population.

Good luck to Castle and Chatham Rock I say. There is a good chance they are on to a winner here and I'm very glad to be along for the ride. It's been a great one over the past couple of weeks and I think over the next couple of years there will be more good news.

I enjoy your comments and found the article ElZorro refered to in post No.6 most interesting.
Chris Castle has certainly stuck with it and like you wish him good luck.

[Balance]

Chris Castle's investment philosophy is best summed up as "getting small is better".

He loves share prices to be as low as could possibly be so that the %tage movements allows __________

(you can fill in the rest).

What a joke!

[GRIFFIN]

I hear what you are saying about Chris Castle but i think this venture has a huge future when it gets traction and not just for CRP but for NZ Agriculture and the economy as a whole. I think WID may have a little holding in this venture as well not to be over looked.

[Hoop]

I found this article Percy, sounds like things were OK by around 2002.
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/c598f399/so-you-failed-so-what.html

A great article is one that stands the test of time

You notice lately the use of the phrase " Cash is Trash" is becoming widespread once again......

How easy it is for generations... including Directors (with the best intentions in mind?) to repeat history over and over again. Just one big cycle..mistake.. learn.. forget..make same mistake again.. learn ..forget......make same mistake again.............and those famous mythical words.."but it's different this time"...

When this current situation goes "pop" Those words of wisdom mentioned within that article will return'''''

What does failure teach you?

Cash is king

[Balance]

A great article is one that stands the test of time

You notice lately the use of the phrase " Cash is Trash" is becoming widespread once again......

How easy it is for generations... including Directors (with the best intentions in mind?) to repeat history over and over again. Just one big cycle..mistake.. learn.. forget..make same mistake again.. learn ..forget......make same mistake again.............and those famous mythical words.."but it's different this time"...

When this current situation goes "pop" Those words of wisdom mentioned within that article will return'''''

What does failure teach you?

Cash is king

Meanwhile, Chris Castle makes a good living out of 'managing' the companies he brings to investors - WID, ARM and KOS.

Salary and consultancy fees from WID in 2002 - $300,000

[binary]

Wait till after the elections.

I'm picking on the off chance a Labour/Greens Coalition form the next Government CRP will be more or less screwed.

Does have alot of potential though.

[croesus]

Binary... that's the most rubbish post this year.. The Greens will love CRP... low cadmium, no carbon freight cost .. most of our phosphate comes from Morocco.... huge freight costs.............. more jobs for Kiwis with CRP... if your going to post on this forum... don't insult the rest of us with stupid comments... as for Labour getting on the front bench... just a pack of Hobbitt hating hypocritical lying inarticulate losers... David Shearer.. nice guy.. but Prime Minister really !

[easy money]

Binary... that's the most rubbish post this year.. The Greens will love CRP... low cadmium, no carbon freight cost .. most of our phosphate comes from Morocco.... huge freight costs.............. more jobs for Kiwis with CRP... if your going to post on this forum... don't insult the rest of us with stupid comments... as for Labour getting on the front bench... just a pack of Hobbitt hating hypocritical lying inarticulate losers... David Shearer.. nice guy.. but Prime Minister really !

Amen to that...

[Xerof]

Binary... that's the most rubbish post this year

Binary, don't worry mate, you won't hold that mantle for too long...it's only January 18th

chin up

[binary]

Amen to that...

I struggle to comprehend a world where the Greens would "love" farmers use of fertilizers. In their backward existence the fact farmers need phosphate suggests the land is being overused. Couple this with the environmental damage caused by mining and the Greens resistance to anything that improves the economy at the expense of the environment, I would still imagine a Labour/Greens coalition would be terrible for CRP.

That and the fact that CRP have based profitability on very rough estimations on how much mine-able phosphate exists I would suggest it is fairly risky at its current price.

Also, usually 1 full stop is sufficient.

[croesus]

There not full stops... there .. hmmn gaps to make it easier to read.

I never said it wasn't risky... everything is risky.... owning your own business, climbing mountains, driving a car.. raising teenagers .... so are you saying there is " environmental damage in mining Chatham Rock
phosphate... a few starfish and the odd deep water pipi.. get a grip... what about the E damage in freighting cadmium leaking crap phosphate from Morocco ( BTW that's not near Fiji... its North Africa

ps so now your saying the Greens are " backward existence " so which side are you on ?

Regards Croesus

[GRIFFIN]

CRP is a no brainer its worth mega bucks for NZ and being able to use our own resource to increase primary production which i may add binary makes this country what it is and with out it we would be a fiscal wreck.

[binary]

I totally agree with phosphate use and how critical its use in on profitable farming but struggle to see how a Government involving the Greens would be pro CRP.

The Greens are about sustainability. Phosphate use is not sustainable.

Also realistically CRP would be stupid to sell the phosphate to NZers. CRP is supposed to be premium phosphate so they would be mad not to follow the rest of our premium mining exports; coal, oil, gold etc and ship the product to high paying overseas buyers.

Therefore very little help to NZ farmers and likely little reduction in phosphate import.

[JohnnyTheHorse]

if your going to post on this forum... don't insult the rest of us with stupid comments

Well, if you're going to post on this forum, please don't insult the rest of us by being illiterate. "Your" is not the same as "you're" and "there" is not the same as "their" or "they're".

And don't even get me started on how you can't piece a sentence together...

[binary]

Well, if you're going to post on this forum, please don't insult the rest of us by being illiterate. "Your" is not the same as "you're" and "there" is not the same as "their" or "they're".

And don't even get me started on how you can't piece a sentence together...

Amen to that..

[croesus]

Johnny with all due respect.... get off your High Horse....and stop being Pedantic... how I "piece " a sentence together is up to me... don't read my posts.. if your fussy.. BTW.. I stand by my assertion re Binarys Post at 6.38 last night...............

[elZorro]

Only two grammatical mistakes that time .:) I wonder what a plot of age of posters versus English writing ability would look like? You're right, I'm not Generation Y, more a baby boomer.

[Vaygor1]

Johnny with all due respect.... (1,8)
get off your High Horse.... (2,3,8)
and stop being Pedantic... (2,3,4,8)
how I "piece " a sentence together is up to me... (2,6,7,8)
don't read my posts.. (2,8)
if your fussy.. (1,2,8)
BTW.. (5,8)
I stand by my assertion re Binarys Post at 6.38 last night............... (3,8,9)


Codes
1. Incomplete sentence.
2. Lower case used instead of upper case.
3. Upper case used instead of lower case.
4. Sentence begins with the word 'And' or 'and'.
5. Unqualified abbreviations.
6. Extra space used.
7. Unnecessary use of quotes.
8. Multiple full-stops.
9. Missing apostrophe.

I get 23 errors.

Vaygor1, just having a bit of fun. :)

[croesus]

I feel suitably downcast and reprimanded now, and to think the best 2 and a half years of my life was in the 5 th Form at high school... circa 1973/74 .

[binary]

A bit of fun maybe.... at another members expense. (extra .....'s intended)

This site is called "Sharetrader", not "Spellcheck".

disc: I ain't never been certificated at university for grammar either.

Next time he may think before making hasty, ill informed, illiterate insults.

Don't anger the internet

[elZorro]

I feel suitably downcast and reprimanded now, and to think the best 2 and a half years of my life was in the 5 th Form at high school... circa 1973/74 .

Cripes Croesus, you're a baby boomer too! No excuse then, cellphones and texting hadn't been invented, and imaginative spelling was not as acceptable. Funny thing though, some of the most illiterate people (able only to sign their name, or who are dyslexic) go on to be self-made millionaires.

[croesus]

Binary.. get over it.... re read your first post..........as I said then The content was rubbish, and ill informed to boot,

Cheers for your supportive post Yankiwi....but im fine, water and ducks you know. .. but well said.. its Sharetrader not Spell check..

Vaygor 1............. great post you put way more effort into my post then I did..

Any way... lets get back to why we are here... I will stop... if every one else does.

Cheers.

P/S Binary... your on report.. : no more whinging, and I am looking for better content in your next post, now where did i leave the bottle of Chardonnay.

[elZorro]

It's faze, not phase..

[elZorro]

Wouldn't that be better said, "It's faze, not phase!" ;)

At least we're not talking about what might happen if a supertanker of diesel crashed into a future barge coming from Chatham Island. :rolleyes:

I had a horrible thought, later, that moosie 900 might have been a jump ahead of me there. Anyway, Yankiwi, what would happen if a barge of superphosphate collided with a diesel supertanker? Would it be spectacular?

I did have some CRP shares a while back, I guessed there would be a need for dilution coming up and I'd had enough of that scenario with GEL for a while. They are near neighbours in the building on The Terrace after all.

It's hard enough getting gold out of the ground, let alone mining seafloor deposits at depth for minerals. I guess the grade is a lot higher though, to make up for the effort.

[binary]

Binary.. get over it.... re read your first post..........as I said then The content was rubbish, and ill informed to boot,

Cheers for your supportive post Yankiwi....but im fine, water and ducks you know. .. but well said.. its Sharetrader not Spell check..

Vaygor 1............. great post you put way more effort into my post then I did..

Any way... lets get back to why we are here... I will stop... if every one else does.

Cheers.

P/S Binary... your on report.. : no more whinging, and I am looking for better content in your next post, now where did i leave the bottle of Chardonnay.

This has been duly noted.

I will ensure I no longer defend my opinions when insulted on a public forum. I would hate to offend someone who disagrees with me.

The internet is truly a confusing place.

[biker]

have juste red the last few posts. c'ant find any misstakes.... dont no wat yo'ur all goin onn abowt

[Vaygor1]

Vaygor 1............. great post you put way more effort into my post then I did..
.... now where did i leave the bottle of Chardonnay.


Thank's for the feedback croesus... much appreciated. In reality, my own writing skills leave a lot to be desired and your style of posting is absolutely fine with me. The last few posts have given me a good laugh. BTW, best Chardonnay in the country comes from the Hawke's Bay... no doubt about it.


..., what would happen if a barge of superphosphate collided with a diesel supertanker? Would it be spectacular?

Not too sure ElZorro but I think the outcome would not be too dissimilar from an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.


The Greens will love CRP... low cadmium, no carbon freight cost .. most of our phosphate comes from Morocco.... huge freight costs.............. more jobs for Kiwis with CRP...

You make some good points croesus, and the benefits to New Zealand and the environment you state are entirely correct in my view. That aside, for me though, I can't imagine the Greens putting the word 'love' and 'mining' into the same sentence (or book) no matter how logical the argument might be. I have less trouble imagining a vegetarian lion, or a labour MP admitting their favourite colour is blue.

Whether my view is accurate or not is beside the point though. It will be the market's overall perception (rightly or wrongly) on how a change in government might effect CRP that will drive the share price up or down.

[Xerof]

For either side of this argument...

Why don't you ask Russel Norman what the party position is? End the speculation with cold facts, if you can get a definitive answer


http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/Email.htm?id=b45d4295-56ae-43a8-971b-1026e4244c46

[percy]

I have shares in RUM listed on ASX.
May pay for a few of you to read their presentation before parting with any of your cash to Chris Castle.

[croesus]

Moosie.... you seem to be a very self opinionated young man... arrogant comes to mind... I noted the way Simla put you in your place on the Bliss Thread...

This is a update... it is not all same old.. here is a company that could make a huge difference to our economy... and the best you can do is be derisory... and buy the way.. his name is Chris Castle... not just Castle...

Regards.

[Whipmoney]

Moosie.... you seem to be a very self opinionated young man... arrogant comes to mind... I noted the way Simla put you in your place on the Bliss Thread...

This is a update... it is not all same old.. here is a company that could make a huge difference to our economy... and the best you can do is be derisory... and buy the way.. his name is Chris Castle... not just Castle...

Regards.


Moosie's actually one of the few people whose posts are worth reading. I can't say the same about your posts in this thread...

[easy money]

Some interest in CRP today....would not be surprised if ACC were making a move on this stock..

[easy money]

Up 2 cents today..getting ready for a run upwards.

[Dej]

Wow, they must be expecting substantial upside when that consent is issued! New shares will mean between 11.5M to 17.15M are added to the stock (dilution of ~9 to 13%). Hopefully the last needed to start mining!

CRP
04/06/2013 08:39
S/HOLDER

REL: 0839 HRS Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited

S/HOLDER: CRP: Chatham to Undertake Public Capital Raising

4 June 2013

Chatham to Undertake Public Capital Raising

The Board of Chatham Rock Phosphate has decided to proceed with a capital
raising offer to the public in New Zealand under a simplified disclosure
prospectus.

The offer will seek to raise $4 million with the ability to accept
oversubscriptions of a further $6 million. The offer will consist of new
ordinary shares at an issue price of $0.35 per share with one option attached
to every three shares issued. The options will have an exercise price of
$0.70 to receive one share and will be exercisable over a three month period
following the grant of a marine consent for Chatham Rock Phosphate's Chatham
Rise phosphorites project.

A draft application for the marine consent has already been filed with a
final application intended to be filed in approximately a month's time. The
marine consent, together with the mining licence (which is expected to be
granted shortly) represent the key regulatory approvals needed for the
project to proceed. Accordingly obtaining the marine consent is seen as a
considerable de-risking step for Chatham Rock Phosphate and appropriate for
triggering the option exercise period. Chatham Rock Phosphate will seek
quotation of the options on the NZAX market.

The purpose of the offer is to substantially fund Chatham Rock Phosphate
through to mining commencement, presently scheduled for 2015. To date Chatham
Rock Phosphate has principally been funded through a combination of private
placements with qualified investors and annual share purchase plan offers to
shareholders. This offer will be available to any member of the public in New
Zealand and its success would allow the management team to focus on achieving
operating milestones for the project rather than needing to focus on seeking
additional funding.

As recently announced, Edison Investment Research has assessed an un-risked
value per share for Chatham Rock Phosphate of $2.00. While risks remain in
the project, Chatham Rock Phosphate considers that the pricing of the offer
represents attractive potential upside for investors against this valuation.
The key will be Chatham Rock Phosphate maintaining project momentum over the
next 12 months which will de-risk the project further and keep it on target
for mining commencement in 2015.

The simplified disclosure prospectus for the offer is expected to be
registered shortly with the offer opening in the next fortnight and closing
in mid-July.

On behalf of the Board,

Chris Castle
Chief Executive Officer
Email: chris@crpl.co.nz
End CA:00236994 For:CRP Type:S/HOLDER Time:2013-06-04 08:39:33

Is the moose going to partake? 0.70 options is a bit forward..

[Xerof]

It's not an SPP, so there shouldn't be pressure on the SP from existing holders, and there is no downside for anyone holding the option.

not sure if a mining license would more than double the shareprice, but that appears to be what they think may happen.

goodo

[MAC]

I’m relatively new to CRP and seeking some advice;

As I understand this is the final capital raising for CRP prior to commencing operation in early to mid 2015. This would usually raise my interest as a sweet spot on the risk/reward curve as it may for others.

CRP have announced an intention to dual list on the TSX. A requirement for the TSX listing, as I understand, is that CRP must have 12 months forward working capital on their balance sheet. CRP state this as being $5M, hmmm, and they are seeking $4M to $10M during this present offering.

I understand from CRP that the TSX listing is “desirable to improve liquidity in the shares given that there are a number of phosphate and fertilizer companies listed in Canada. phosphate attracts significant research from Canadian broking firms and a significant percentage of Shares are owned by North American investors.”

After the present offering they should not have further need for capital raising, and, in terms of further growth they cannot immediately easily expand much beyond 15 years resource, as I understand, they are pretty much surrounded by L&M prospecting licences.

What are the reasons CRP may wish to list on the TSX;

1. One of the major investors is considering a sell down or out ?
2. Facilitation of a possible takeover ?
3. I'm reading too much into this ?

Mac

[Merc]

Wikipedia says about the Chatham Rise:

"The Chatham Rise is an area of ocean floor to the east of New Zealand (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/New_Zealand), forming part of the Zealandia (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Zealandia_(continent)) continent. It stretches for some 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) from near the South Island (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/South_Island) in the west, to the Chatham Islands (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Chatham_Islands) in the east. It is New Zealand's most productive and important fishing (http://www.sharetrader.co.nz/wiki/Fishing) ground."

A novice's question here:

- How certain are they to receive a license to mine in this area?

[easy money]

Well said Moose...

[MAC]

I agree, there is every probability that CRP may achieve a mining consent, a prospect offering economic benefits will assist the politics, and unlike onshore mining there are fewer NIMBY's out there on the ocean.

There is a chance though that being the first application made it may attract those opposed to the new process in force and an appeal could delay the granting of a consent considerably, even a year or two.

All risks to be fairly cognisant of and considered.

[MAC]

It seems that some opposition is forming and perhaps some economic competition from fisheries also.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/8886992/Fishers-against-mining-proposal

It is just unfortunate that CRP’s cashflow would not permit a capital raising to take place immediately after gaining a mining consent.

CRP’s analyst, Edison, provide a de-risked valuation of NZ$2.00/share, the present share price is $0.35 giving us a risk reward ratio of 570%, and IMHO it needs to be this high right now to consider investing.

Consenting is more a political process than a scientific evaluation, I’m still envisaging that the EPA will ultimately back CRP in support of the new process and legislation, and the economic benefits to NZ will assist parliamentary politics, but if a stalemate does occur an appeal process could delay the venture significantly.

I’m still willing to dip my toes in but with a small portfolio percentage.

DISC: Applying but well diversified

[blackcap]

Anyone else going to the AGM in Wellington on Tuesday the 9th July?

[croesus]

Blackcap.. I will be there... you wont have a problem finding me..... Im the 6' Robert Redford look alike... ( broader shoulders ) with the mid west .. well more Kansas drawl.... natural habitat.. near the free drink trolley.

Moosie... Totally agree.. and to think back in the early 80s ... I was a Greenpeace donator ... fool me.. they are IMHO whiners, bludgers, and hypocrites.. a pox on their house.

ciao.

[blackcap]

Blackcap.. I will be there... you wont have a problem finding me..... Im the 6' Robert Redford look alike... ( broader shoulders ) with the mid west .. well more Kansas drawl.... natural habitat.. near the free drink trolley.


ciao.
hahaha croesus, am still chuckling at your description of yourself. I didnt realise they had a free drinks trolly... it will be my first time. Do they also offer a bowl with an assortment of cigars?
Greenpeace is not what it used to be.. .to me it has morphed into a political fringe terrorist green organisation. I still have friends who are on the donor list that I try to convince to see the folly of their ways.

[croesus]

Cheers Moosie, just back from a big night at the Corn Exchange ( Hastings ) Watching the Poms stick it to the Aussie Bleaters.

Agree totally with your sentiments re Greenpeace.

Not sure if Snakk will go much lower, but if it does a shiraz or Cab Sav... on the condition.. I get to buy you a beer first.

chin chin

[easy money]

haha ok deal. too bad the hockey season is over now, wouldn't mind watching the Leafs play a game while having a brewskie!

One last seller at .36 cents...then all clear..

[blackcap]

Yes that would be nice wouldnt it but I think the seller would magically re-appear. Btw did anyone go to the AGM and what did they think? Anyone else think Chris Castle was getting a bit desperate with the "marketing for new money" or is this normal practice at AOR AGM's?

[Joshuatree]

I think you would be best to keep it that way.
Castle was a one time Brierley Investments employee.He went on to float his own investment company.Major investment was Regina Confectionary,Oamaru.
His investment record was/is very poor.
I would not invest in any company Castle was/is connected with.

Curious re how many people lost money in Widespread and if anyone ended up ahead; now be honest?

[MAC]

I'm a value investor Moosie, liquidity is important for risk management though.

I've a risk free valuation for CRP of $1.85, CRP's own analyst, Quadrant, have them risk free at $2.00.

I'm looking at CRP as being substantially de-risked, let’s say 60%, by February 2014 when their marine consent decision is due, with the remaining 40% risk on operational performance in 2015.

The next six months are very important and de-risking could well see some big moves in SP, on a buy and hold basis I would not be surprised to see CRP as a $2.50 stock at FY16.

Risks in the next six months are a matter of regulatory process, beyond that the risks are operational and technical, and I’m more comfortable with those, perhaps because of my background in project engineering, but more so because of confidence in Boskalis international exp as the contracted ship builder and operator.

[Joshuatree]

Do you have an association with chris castle MAC?

[MAC]

Ha, no I don't Joshuatree, nor do I place much importance on the perception of personalities or performance by some who may or may not have baggage for what could be a number of undisclosed reasons.

I have not seen any issues that concern me associated with Chris Castle in his performance at CRP to date and recognise that he has exceptional support in Boskalis project management and probably good financial advice from Quadrant also.

Declaration: no association with CRP or staff other than as a shareholder.

[blackcap]

Moosie... word of warning.. the nickel mining in Vietnam is a dead duck. Shareprice of ASN has stayed at 4 cents for a long time now.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=ASN.V


That said if anyone wants exposure to CRP, it is cheaper getting an entry through AOR as this is discounted to NTA, and the NTA is measurable by getting the market value of CRP and adding the other "significant" investment. But the NTA of CRP alone is already higher than the AOR shareprice.

[Joshuatree]

Thanks mac for your disclosure
Last ann report

consultancy fees $498,126 Do they do any of this ?

Directorsfees $49,000

Gen exp $41,269

Management fees $180,000

Office $52,733

Rent $26,385

TRAVEL $229,060 chris and linda live in golden bay above the sea. Office is in wellington where they stay during the week and they are the only 2 that run it? Expensive place to travel from, Takaka twice a week by the looks.

Int free loans Yes but not much this year more in 2012

payment to Nevay holdings ? $459,400 c castle and l saunders

Aorere Holdings and subsea check cross hoildings etc.

Options issued check.
Please check accuracy for yourself. check history of widespread,dilution , issues of shares ,etc amount of fees of all sorts, clipping the ticket.

[MAC]

Joshuatree, I genuinely and sincerely recommend that you don’t provide information on this forum about where directors live.

Aside;

CRP are a listed company, with the largest shareholders being those below. Director shareholdings are 2.39%.

It has been very satisfying to see Subsea Investments and Boskalis in particular taking significant stakes and fully backing the Venture.

27.01% Subsea Investments (US private equity fund)
18.72% Boskalis (Global marine mining company)
10.34% Aorere Resource
6.87% Odyssey Marine Exploration

Amongst the directors and executives we have very good representation in Ko De Blaeij (Boskalis) and also with Jill Hatchwell (Aorere).

I’m also very pleased with technical representation in Dr Robin Falconer and Robert Goodden also who have many years indeed in marine mining and prospecting experience and bring a lot to the company.

All that contributes to a confident team as I see it. I hope you would agree aside from perhaps retaining some sort of personal issues with the managing director.

[Joshuatree]

Hi , youre right Mac but it was a very generalized description and i just chanced on it when on holiday a few years back after a conversation about WID a few days before.
One of the most important aspects of any investment is having confidence in management. Often its very hard to research this. I was a shareholder in widespread some years ago . i dont have a grudge but my personal overwhelming exp is i dont have confidence in management; i don't think shareholders are looked after.I think there is alot of enthusiasm and spin and justification to benefit who? didnt feel like us. Just my opinion. No more from me atp. This is a great forum to share our opinions on making money and not losing it ,but as ever DYOR and good luck .

[Roberto]

But the exact addresses of the directors, including Chris, are a matter of public record on the Companies Office website...

[percy]

Joshuatree.
Thank you for your good memory,and excellent posts.
From my memory Jill Hatchwell has worked with/for Chris Castle for a number of years.

[MAC]

I also appreciate your input and experience Joshuatree, on this thread, and others;

Consider that Subsea have a 27.1% stake in CRP, if they were to exercise all their options tomorrow that would take them to 42.5%. Gets tantalisingly close doesn't it for a change.

We should well imagine though that major global entities like Subsea and Bosaklis are already keeping CRP and their investments close at hand and tightly under control.

[edc]

Labour, Greens overtake National in new poll
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11111563

*worried*

Holding some shares in CRP and MRP.

[andysh]

Update from Edison: http://www.edisoninvestmentresearch.com/?ACT=18&ID=10288

[MAC]

Whilst I agree it is not worthy for CRP enter into pointless debates with negative lobby groups who don’t want to consider other views, I’m not so sure it is wise to snub the media. Consenting is a political process not a logical or rational decision based on what’s best for the environment.

http://www.rockphosphate.co.nz/news/2013/9/2/statement-to-tv3

Although having said that, I do think CRP will come through this process. If one chooses to look at the big picture, rather than just what happens in the one square kilometre on the Chatham rise alone, the environmental benefits versus the effects look good enough to me to allow this to fly, especially given the economic benefits.

> Temporary surgical disruption to the sea bed vs. open cast mining in Morocco.
> Lower cadmium levels in the NZ bovine and human food chain
> Reduced runoff of fertilizer into NZ rivers and lakes
> Much less processing of product therefore less pollutants
> Lower carbon footprint from shorter shipping distances and lower energy production

[Roberto]

Bit of a drop off today and over the last couple of weeks. Market getting sick of waiting for the mining license to come through?

[MAC]

Bit of a drop off today and over the last couple of weeks. Market getting sick of waiting for the mining license to come through?

Yes, I think so too, CRP guidance is for a mining permit announcement in "September/October" so not long now. It's a binary outcome, I'm happy to hold actually, might even top up a little at 26cents.

[croesus]

I see on the NZX page it appears Gareth Hughes ( Green Party ) is some what confused ( surprised about that )... can any one put up the open letter from Chris Castle.

Thanks in advance.

chin chin

[Xerof]

Hey Clint, do we have a policy on fertiliser?

[percy]

Yes,pile it on John Key.lol.

[Kees]

CRP
17/09/2013 12:26
GENERAL

REL: 1226 HRS Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited

GENERAL: CRP: Open letter to Gareth Hughes

17 September 2013

Open letter to Gareth Hughes, Green MP

Dear Gareth

I was very disappointed to see you had aligned yourself publicly with the
bottom trawling industry in a news item on TV3 at the weekend.

In our briefing to you last year you indicated you had not reached any
conclusion about the merits of our project. I would have thought that you
would make an informed decision, including discussion of your concerns with
us, before going public for the sake of a TV sound bite.

You have publicly said you are not against mining per se and will evaluate
each project on its merits. We wonder how much faith to put in that statement
if the evaluation is based on so little consultation and so few facts. If
you have ruled out this mining project as well as countless others, are there
any you do support?

We're astonished you have formed such a negative opinion about our project
given the compelling potential environmental and economic benefits it offers
and its minimal environmental impacts.

To remind you:

1. Chatham Rise rock phosphate, as an ultra-low cadmium direct-application
fertiliser, has proven to be as effective as processed fertilisers while
reducing run-off effects on New Zealand waterways by up to 80%.

2. This resource provides fertiliser security for farming by providing a
local alternative source. Most rock phosphate used to make fertiliser now is
imported from Morocco.

3. Moroccan rock phosphate is high in cadmium, involves high transport costs
and has a significant carbon footprint.

4. New Zealand is predicted to be $900 million richer as a result of our new
industry and we'll be generating annual exports or import substitution of
$300 million, plus supporting farming, our biggest earner.

5. By area, the economic value of the phosphate resource is 500 times greater
than fishing; it is expected to yield $9.1 million per km2. In contrast,
bottom trawling yields less than $20,000 per km2.

So while our operations will have some environmental impacts, they also offer
very significant environmental and economic benefits.

The TV3 news item noted your alliance with the fishing industry is an
unlikely one. I agree, given bottom trawling's massive environmental impacts
and lack of environmental oversight.

Our proposed mining operation is subject to a rigorous environmental
evaluation and monitoring process. The story that should be getting your
attention is not the potential environmental impact of our project, but the
freedom of the fishing industry to devastate as much of our EEZ as they like
(currently about 50,000 km2 per year, or 385,032 km2 or 9.3% of the EEZ since
1989) with no environmental oversight or monitoring.

We wouldn't consider extracting phosphate nodules from a very limited area of
the Chatham Rise if we expected it to cause more than very minor
environmental impacts. Our operations will lift the top 30cm of sandy silt
and redeposit 85% of it on the same area of seabed after extracting the
nodules. Modelling indicates the material returned will not be widely
dispersed, and the sediment that doesn't immediately settle will rapidly
dilute to insignificant levels.

Our draft environmental impact assessment (EIA), supported by more than 30
expert reports, has identified no long-term impacts on key spawning, juvenile
and young fish habitat. Any potential impacts are predicted to be confined to
our limited extraction areas, and are short-term, reversible, and of low
environmental risk.

But while bottom trawling - ploughing vast tracts of the EEZ seabed decade
after decade - requires no environmental consents, our project needs a mining
licence and a marine consent. These cost millions of dollars, require years
of research, consultation and official process, and involve full public
scrutiny.

Chatham's planned 15-year extraction project will touch a total of 450 km2,
far less than 1% of the Chatham Rise. In contrast, over the same period
fishing will bottom trawl 750,000 km2, about three times the size of New
Zealand.

Year after year, weighted nets scrape about 50,000 km2 of seabed, with
bottom-dwelling animals disturbed or destroyed - mostly repeatedly so areas
never have the chance to regenerate. Up to 3,000 km2 of new territory is
disturbed annually - an environmental impact 100 times greater than predicted
for phosphate extraction. Each year we plan to touch just 30 km2.

Scientific research shows that hoki spawning is concentrated on the West
Coast of the South Island and in Cook Strait, and juvenile growth occurs over
the entire 189,000 km2 rise. The annual fish trawl footprint on just the
Chatham Rise during the 2009-10 fishing year was 19,051 km2.

The Deep Water Group members therefore already know they can continually
disturb the ecosystem of 10% of the Chatham Rise area without harming
juvenile fish stocks. Chatham's extra annual 30 km2 are likely to have no
significant additional effect on the hoki fishery.

In summary, fishing destroys the benthic habitats of 100 times the area of
previously untouched sea floor every year than we plan to, and every year
fishing stops regeneration on an area of seafloor almost 2,000 times greater
than our planned area of impact.

Thanks partly to Chatham's $20 million investment, the rise's benthic
environment is now one of the best-known parts of our marine territory, and
this information can now inform resource and environmental management
decisions, possibly including modifying the location of benthic protection
areas. We've spent three years collecting data on oceanographic conditions
(tides, currents, turbidity), benthic life, and analysing the impacts of
disturbances on the seafloor and in the water column so we can design a
mining system and operational plan that minimises environmental impacts and
protects areas of benthic habitat.

Rather than being of environmental concern, ours is a project of national
significance offering significant economic and environmental benefits.

A word or two about BPAs

Benthic Protection Areas were promoted by the fishing industry, for the
fishing industry, and were specifically designed to avoid fishing areas,
especially those relating to bottom trawling. BPAs include a representative
sample of benthic habitats, spread geographically to ensure adequate
latitudinal and longitudinal variation. The map shows how they avoid bottom-
trawling areas.

BPAs were designed without regard for New Zealand's other important natural
resources such as rock phosphate or massive sulphides.

BPAs were implemented to protect benthic biodiversity, not fish spawning
grounds or nurseries, though that may be a side benefit for some species.

BPAs are only covered by fisheries legislation. They do not relate to other
legislation covering other ocean activities, such as the newly enacted EEZ
legislation, which expressly excludes any direct reference to BPAs.
Consideration of the relative importance of BPA's will be part of the
environmental impact assessment process managed by the Environmental
Protection Authority.

The fishing industry also used the introduction of the BPAs to substantially
reduce its monitoring costs, even though establishing BPAs made no difference
to its ability to bottom trawl in the vast majority of the EEZ. In
recognition of the contribution BPAs would make to marine protection, the
government agreed any research relating to the potential effects of bottom
trawling on the benthic environment or its biodiversity should be two-thirds
Crown funded and one-third industry funded.

Chris Castle, Managing Director Chatham Rock Phosphate

[Roberto]

Could be a decent top-up opportunity at 27c...

[Intel]

I've been having a look into CRP and strongly believe this is univestable from a long term perspective. CRP are entering as a commodity provider in a market which has the potential to be oversupplied for the next few hundred years. They will be at the peril of market pricing in FX and Rock phosphate. Have a quick look at these charts,

World bank commodity price forecasts (downward trending for Rock Phosphate which is not good)
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1304428586133/CommodityMarketsOutlook_July2013.pdf


Current spot phosphate price of USD 127.50 (this is Morocan FOB as well. Has a much higher PO2 count than CRP, so apply say 30% discount)
http://ycharts.com/indicators/morocco_phosphate_rock_price

At this discount, they will recieve (in the market right now) approx $90 per tonne. That meanns a mining rate in EUR (at current spot of 1.35) of 65 euro to break even at GP level.

The mining rate is still undetermined, indications around EUR 70

They have the "freight" advantage but really, this doesnt stack up to me....

Seems like so much risk for something that does not have any licenses yet, political risks etc and at best on current spot rates gives me an NPV close to zero.

Would like to hear others thoughts, as I may be missing someething crucial.

[MAC]

I've been having a look into CRP and strongly believe this is univestable from a long term perspective. CRP are entering as a commodity provider in a market which has the potential to be oversupplied for the next few hundred years. They will be at the peril of market pricing in FX and Rock phosphate. Have a quick look at these charts,

World bank commodity price forecasts (downward trending for Rock Phosphate which is not good)
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1304428586133/CommodityMarketsOutlook_July2013.pdf


Current spot phosphate price of USD 127.50 (this is Morocan FOB as well. Has a much higher PO2 count than CRP, so apply say 30% discount)
http://ycharts.com/indicators/morocco_phosphate_rock_price

At this discount, they will recieve (in the market right now) approx $90 per tonne. That meanns a mining rate in EUR (at current spot of 1.35) of 65 euro to break even at GP level.

The mining rate is still undetermined, indications around EUR 70

They have the "freight" advantage but really, this doesnt stack up to me....

Seems like so much risk for something that does not have any licenses yet, political risks etc and at best on current spot rates gives me an NPV close to zero.

Would like to hear others thoughts, as I may be missing someething crucial.

I’ve found the Edison research to be a fair assessment of the market and CRP’s long term prospects. You may find this a good starting point if you are new to the company;

You can find their latest report here;

http://static.squarespace.com/static/51d24098e4b0d519d0c065f5/t/521d4537e4b00cec7e59bdb9/1377649975244/chathamrock220813update.pdf

The Edison website is here;

http://www.edisoninvestmentresearch.com/

[Intel]

Hmmm, I don’t think an issuer paid research report can convince me.

The economics of a 70 EUR cash mining cost do not at all bode well for the future of this company in my opinion.

50 EUR = 68 USD
60 EUR = 81 USD
70 EUR = 95 USD

From my research so far, Morocco OCP was operating at a phosphate mining cost of $45 USD per tonne FOB. CRP’s ability to get a cheap mining cost, below say 50 EUR are damn near impossible for three reasons,

1 – The operator is also a 20% equity holder. Would you rather take your profits at the bottom of the income statement or the top? Boskalis are incentivised to charge a higher rate so they can optimize their profits, not CRP’s.
2 – Boskalis has to charge a rate that will at least earn them WACC on the capex to fit out the boat + the opportunity cost of not utilising it in other operations. Back solving these costs in approximate terms is pushing that mining rate high. I read they will spend approx 200m USD somewhere.
3 – Boskalis are the only partner working on the boat, giving them a huge advantage as the project will be delayed many more years if they cant agree on a price, costing shareholders money.

When you couple these unknown risks around contract pricing with the fact that CRP are looking to enter a market (phosphate) which has hundreds of years of supply and will be profitable for the biggest players at a mining cost south of $100 per tonne Morocco quality FOB.

These risks have not at all been explained by Edison, and to no surprise there is no analysis of where CRP sits on the cash cost curve, a pitfall of issuer paid research and a good example of why you should be doing your own.

Also remember you have to discount CRP’s price as it is an inferior product compared to Morocco on a P2O5 count (33% vs 24%)

[GRIFFIN]

Gee Intel that sounds a tad gloomy for CRP, you better give Chris C a ring and tell him all those hoops he's jumping through is a total wast of time.

[percy]

Help please.
What is the difference between phosphate and potash.?
I have RUM ax who are developing a potash resource.

[hilskin]

Help please.
What is the difference between phosphate and potash.?
I have RUM ax who are developing a potash resource.

Try this link
http://potashinvestingnews.com/7024-potash-vs-phosphate-what-is-the-difference.html

You Tube Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6GULmOnDDk#t=62

[MAC]

Hmmm, I don’t think an issuer paid research report can convince me.

The economics of a 70 EUR cash mining cost do not at all bode well for the future of this company in my opinion.

50 EUR = 68 USD
60 EUR = 81 USD
70 EUR = 95 USD

From my research so far, Morocco OCP was operating at a phosphate mining cost of $45 USD per tonne FOB. CRP’s ability to get a cheap mining cost, below say 50 EUR are damn near impossible for three reasons,

1 – The operator is also a 20% equity holder. Would you rather take your profits at the bottom of the income statement or the top? Boskalis are incentivised to charge a higher rate so they can optimize their profits, not CRP’s.
2 – Boskalis has to charge a rate that will at least earn them WACC on the capex to fit out the boat + the opportunity cost of not utilising it in other operations. Back solving these costs in approximate terms is pushing that mining rate high. I read they will spend approx 200m USD somewhere.
3 – Boskalis are the only partner working on the boat, giving them a huge advantage as the project will be delayed many more years if they cant agree on a price, costing shareholders money.

When you couple these unknown risks around contract pricing with the fact that CRP are looking to enter a market (phosphate) which has hundreds of years of supply and will be profitable for the biggest players at a mining cost south of $100 per tonne Morocco quality FOB.

These risks have not at all been explained by Edison, and to no surprise there is no analysis of where CRP sits on the cash cost curve, a pitfall of issuer paid research and a good example of why you should be doing your own.

Also remember you have to discount CRP’s price as it is an inferior product compared to Morocco on a P2O5 count (33% vs 24%)

Have a look Intel through the prior capital raising documents, some of your concerns above will be alleviated there, though not all risks can ever be satisfied.

Edison do have a reputation to uphold, but I agree we should recognise that they also have to rely on what information they get from CRP as they do from the hundreds of other companies they research. I was pleased actually with the pragmatism and the balanced criticisms in their last report.

There is no doubt that CRP is a high risk high reward stock. It's also complex to research and to work through, I spent six months before making a modest investment. Good diversification and small percentage holdings is the key, don't go mortgaging your house.

[percy]

Try this link
http://potashinvestingnews.com/7024-potash-vs-phosphate-what-is-the-difference.html

You Tube Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6GULmOnDDk#t=62

Thank you for the link.

[Intel]

Not to be completely against CRP, but lif you look at these two new projects expected in Angola and PRC (just one exmaple of multiple projects I've found).

http://www.minbos.com/assets/documents/mediaresearch/helmsecresearchreportnovember2012.pdf

Scoping studies with Opex of USD$57 and USD$50 respectively. They quote they are in the lower half of the cost curve. Now note that they havent said they weer in the 90th percentile but the bottom half.

You could buy this company at a significant discount compared to CRP. Phosphate exposure, much greater potential for upside and its ASX listed. I just dont understand why you would invest in a mining project like CRP's when there are so many risks and at current spot rates the reward does not seem to compensate those risk.

On my figures, CRP becomes worthless at a spot rate of USD98. This is being incredibly generous to CRP regarding freight costs etc. Using current FX rates and mining of 70 EUR.

Plus you have paradise phosphate project at Mt Isa in Northern queensland, if that comes online and they become exporters of rock phosphate, the entire "freight" advantage CRP relies upon is toast. Or even worse, China lifts export bans on rock phosphate..

I believe their are much cheaper alternatives to CRP if you wnated exposure to phosphate. IMHO

[blackcap]

Agree with you on that one Intel. CRP is going no where fast and there are still too many risks and unknowns. It would be better to buy CRP once a lot of the unkowns were gone. The cost of raising the phosphate from the sea bottom will imho blow out as well. Please people do not rely on Edison reports. I take them with a grain of salt. Company commissioned...... you gotta be cynical really. caveat emptor.

But if you do want exposure to CRP, a cheaper entry would be buying AOR. You can then get into CRP at a good discount and get whatever AOR may hold for free..... :)

[MAC]

I’ve only a small percentage holding in CRP and thus I’m not exposed to a lot of risk, this stock for me is more a high risk high reward interest. I’d like to see a local company prosper and benefit the economy and farming industry.

This article from the ODT is one of the more balanced I’ve read recently, although most journalists seem to totally ignore or overlook all the on land environmental benefits to the dairy industry and other sectors, not sure why.

http://www.odt.co.nz/lifestyle/magazine/276477/sea-trouble

''We expect to get both permits by mid-2014. Then it's two years to modify the ship. The day we get those consents this company is worth $500 million.''

Hmmm, all the impact studies are complete which are usually the time consumer, the government is supportive, the environmental balance onshore/offshore seems fine, I actually think the odds are in CRP’s favour but not necessarily the schedule. It may come down to who can pay the lawyer’s for the longest. Although having said that the mining permit must be very close now.

[hilskin]

Thanks for sharing MAC, great article. There is still a long way to go for this company but it will surely fly once it has the required consents in place.
I have a small holding and not looking to buy more until it has de risked itself. I see this company as a long term prospect, the sort of company you throw some spare cash at that you are prepared to lose if it all turns pear shaped. High risk but big returns if they get it right.

[MAC]

Thanks for sharing MAC, great article. There is still a long way to go for this company but it will surely fly once it has the required consents in place.
I have a small holding and not looking to buy more until it has de risked itself. I see this company as a long term prospect, the sort of company you throw some spare cash at that you are prepared to lose if it all turns pear shaped. High risk but big returns if they get it right.

I think they'll get there too. I've been following the CRPOB (70c options) market also, this week the sellers have totally gone and the stack is clear, but until recently you could pick up these options (post marine consent expiry) for 3c, another way of balancing the binary nature of the risk.

[blackcap]

I think they'll get there too. I've been following the CRPOB (70c options) market also, this week the sellers have totally gone and the stack is clear, but until recently you could pick up these options (post marine consent expiry) for 3c, another way of balancing the binary nature of the risk.

I do not think that the sellers going means anything. Have you seen how many of these options there are? Only 2.2 million in total. Total capitalization at $111,000. Just very illiquid so any price movement in these options is not at all meaningful.

[elZorro]

One thing about phosphate, it's an important nutrient for bioalgae (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3152439/). If the world moves to this as a replacement for fossil fuels, they'll need lots of phosphate, and some other nutrients besides. But whether it's in such short supply for current farming and future carbon neutral fuels that a whole new industry has to be designed to pull it off a deep ocean shelf, mining it for just three days in twelve - I'm not sure.

[Roberto]

Yes, I think so too, CRP guidance is for a mining permit announcement in "September/October" so not long now. It's a binary outcome, I'm happy to hold actually, might even top up a little at 26cents.

Well, they've got tomorrow...

Just about run out of patience on this one.

[MAC]

The NZIER draft report (September 2012) on the Economic impact of Chatham Rock Phosphate.

http://nzier.org.nz/sites/nzier.org.nz/files/Economic%20impact%20of%20CRP..pdf

My understanding was that CRP had increased the mining permit application from 25M tonnes to 35M tonnes, but I do like the recognition of prospective $300M pa in revenues for 16 years, if it does go up to 35M tonnes all the better.

[Intel]

And phosphate prices bite the dust again.

Those that are in this should seriously build a dcf and see what value comes out with a Phophate price of USD $120.60, down another 5% last month. You'll be in for a serious shock!

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1111002388669/829392-1357588777389/Pnk_1113.pdf

[hilskin]

S/HOLDER: CRP: Chatham Rock Phosphate Shareholder Update
CRP
06/11/2013 13:57
S/HOLDER

REL: 1357 HRS Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited

S/HOLDER: CRP: Chatham Rock Phosphate Shareholder Update

Shareholder Update
NOVEMBER 2013

A number of shareholders have been asking for progress updates on our
activities so here's a summary of what we've been up to.

The Permitting Process

The short answer is we're making headway towards gaining our Mining Licence.
Over the past four months, since we withdrew our Marine Consent application,
our primary focus has been on acquiring our Mining Licence.

The process is taking longer and proving more complex than we and NZ
Petroleum and Minerals anticipated. You will recall we received a letter
from NZP&M in April indicating it hoped to deal with the licence quickly.

In the intervening time we have supplied at least six supplementary documents
following requests for further information, and have met with representatives
of NZP&M each week in order to satisfy bureaucratic requirements.

After a long, complex and at times very frustrating exercise we believe the
final few outstanding issues are close to being resolved.

It is fair to point out that the process has not been helped by our
application being the first of this type under the new Crown Minerals Act.
NZP&M has been determined to demonstrate a robust assessment process, an
intent we support, but at times that determination has caused the process to
drag on to no-one's benefit.

At this stage all we can say is watch this space, we are confident of a
positive outcome in the near term.

Finance updates

I continue to talk to mainly international investors interested in investing
in our project. During a recent trip to Los Angeles I met with three groups
of financial intermediaries and high net-worth individuals.

Once we receive our Mining Licence I am confident we will attract further
capital to finance our Marine Consent application process.

Consultation

We have an ongoing programme of talking to stakeholder groups to keep them
informed about progress on the project. We received an invitation from
Labour MP and environment spokesperson Moana Mackey to provide an update. We
had presented to her and other MPs about a year ago.

The latest session, attended by five Labour MPs and also Forest and Bird's
Kevin Hackwell, was extremely useful in teasing out key areas of interest.
The focus of their questions was primarily on potential impacts on fishing,
what other impacts water column and seabed sediments would have and the
relevance of the Benthic Protection Areas to our project. The latter
followed an unsuccessful attempt by Green MP Gareth Hughes to have BPAs cover
mining as well as fishing activity.

We will also be presenting to public and iwi/imi groups on the Chatham
Islands later in November.

Environmental Impact Assessment

In preparation for submitting our Environmental Impact Assessment as part of
the Marine Consent application, the team continues to refine our
documentation. We have received feedback from a variety of sources that has
enabled us to continue to improve the information we will present.

This includes being able to anticipate as accurately as possible potential
areas of concern and to provide data to address them, or to identify possible
mitigation or monitoring ideas.

While the delays related to the Mining Licence have been expensive in both
time and money terms, it has enabled us to ensure the EIA is thoroughly
supported by scientific analysis and builds in feedback from extensive
consultation with interested parties.

Conferences

We continue to receive opportunities to promote our project at conferences.
We've found they are a particularly successful way of talking to stakeholders
- and there are often possible investors in the audience, which is a bonus!

We've attended the Underwater Mining Industry conferences for the past three
years. The first was at Gelendzhik on the Russian Black Sea (which took me
50 hours to get to). I made valuable connections with the large dredging
companies and also met Robert Goodden, who became one of our expert advisers
and latterly a director.

This year's conference was held in Rio De Janeiro and we continued to receive
strong interest in our project from all the major international dredging
companies and others involved in the marine mining industry.

Earlier in October Chair Linda Sanders and I presented an overview of the
project to the New Zealand Institute
of Chartered Accountants conference in Auckland.

Judging by the feedback received after our address the
delegates were impressed with what we have achieved so far as a company and
found our "story" a compelling one.

Chief Operating Officer Ray Wood spoke at a New
Zealand Mining Summit in October, organised by NZP&M and Straterra to
showcase New Zealand's mineral prospectivity. We were one of five companies
presenting to an audience that included a number of potential Chinese
investors.

Environmental questions

As a parallel activity, primarily arising from the inaccurate claims made by
some Deep Water Group members, we have developed answers to potential
questions often asked about environmental issues related to our project.

The questions and answers are now on our website see -
http://www.rockphosphate.co.nz/news/2013/11/1/qa-environment-questions-answer
ed-fact-sheet

Chris Castle
Managing Director
End CA:00243424 For:CRP Type:S/HOLDER Time:2013-11-06 13:57:28

[MAC]

And phosphate prices bite the dust again.

Those that are in this should seriously build a dcf and see what value comes out with a Phophate price of USD $120.60, down another 5% last month. You'll be in for a serious shock!

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPECTS/Resources/334934-1111002388669/829392-1357588777389/Pnk_1113.pdf

My DCF looks ok at $1.85, de-risked of course, not quite as good as that of Edison Research at $2.04.

[Xerof]

A green hat and megaphone remains unconvincing for me - a sea weed suit gets me onside every time......

[MAC]

Recommend a watch of “Silver Rush” on Sky TV at the moment if you want to see what Odyssey do. Presently mining for shipwreck silver at 3,000m depth, by comparison makes Chatham phosphate mining look totally easy really;

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11161467

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/silver-rush

[croesus]

CRP and AOR. in lockdown. pending announcement

anyone have a sniff of what it might be ?

[blackcap]

Boom, here we go;

https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/186542.pdf

Unfortunately for shareholders the share price is going no where in the immediate future...

[Roberto]

Unfortunately for shareholders the share price is going no where in the immediate future...

Great to finally get it, but yeah - the mining licence has been a given for a long time - doesn't look like it'll do amazing things to the sp. We'll need the marine licence for that. Back to the waiting game...

[Intel]

Congrats to Chatham Rock! Good milestone to pass, I do feel a little bad continually pushing this, however average phophate price in Novemeber was USD $108 a tonnne.. down another $12... With the world bank still forcasting real rate declines out to 2025... Just hope every holder is aware of this! Congrats to CRp none the less,, IM sure a lot of work went into that license!

[MAC]

It’s a long term high reward high risk investment with a long way to go and potentially a big future.

I see the three main risks for the venture as being the mining permit, the marine consent and perhaps the remaining apportionment, lesser of the three, on the boat construction and early operations.

CRP have made good progress this year, albeit a few months slower within a multiyear plan, and are perhaps now a third de-risked on the way to a de-risked valuation in the order of $2.

Disc: Hold, buy any dips along the way.

[blackcap]

I, and are perhaps now a third de-risked on the way to a de-risked valuation in the order of $2.

Disc: Hold, buy any dips along the way.

Mac, I would take that valuation from Edison with a grain of salt. If you want to waste good money, that is your choice but check what Intel has been saying before you rush in. I am not knocking CRP, I think they are doing good things and hope it works but some of the valuations given seem to be plucked out of thin air.

[MAC]

Mac, I would take that valuation from Edison with a grain of salt. If you want to waste good money, that is your choice but check what Intel has been saying before you rush in. I am not knocking CRP, I think they are doing good things and hope it works but some of the valuations given seem to be plucked out of thin air.

Thanks blackcap, have done my research thoroughly, price sensitivities, and FA at $1.85 also, slightly lower than Edison at $2.04 and CRP’s at $2.20 , and understand the risks start up ventures pose.

I apply portfolio diversification limit rules to manage risk also and wouldn't recommend to others to invest their house in a startup venture , but I do see CRP as one of the more prospective within the NZX.

Look forward to a marine consent next year.

DYOR

[Roberto]

It’s a long term high reward high risk investment with a long way to go and potentially a big future.

I see the three main risks for the venture as being the mining permit, the marine consent and perhaps the remaining apportionment, lesser of the three, on the boat construction and early operations.

CRP have made good progress this year, albeit a few months slower within a multiyear plan, and are perhaps now a third de-risked on the way to a de-risked valuation in the order of $2.

Disc: Hold, buy any dips along the way.


Would you add environmental group opposition to that list? After the BRL debacle, that's my biggest fear.

[Intel]

Thanks blackcap, have done my research thoroughly, price sensitivities, and FA at $1.85 also, slightly lower than Edison at $2.04 and CRP’s at $2.20 , and understand the risks start up ventures pose.

I apply portfolio diversification limit rules to manage risk also and wouldn't recommend to others to invest their house in a startup venture , but I do see CRP as one of the more prospective within the NZX.

Look forward to a marine consent next year.

DYOR

Hmmmm... DYOR is ironic in that last post, as you are of the belief that nothing has changed since august, when Edisons report was released.. Ill help you, Global phosphate prices have plummeted, from 165 to 108 since that last report, See attached for a scenario analysis of sensitivity to changes in phosphate prices from Edison. You are betting on a company which will be one of the highest cost producers in a market which is having huge amounts of supply come on line.... An undetermined mining contract rate which was advised to be 70 Euro per tonne, that was almost 2 years ago now and guess what, prices go up... In my view this is not the time to be investing in such a company... Happy to hear and understand how you derive such a valuation? Also relying on a resaerch report like Edison is silly as you have no clue what assumptions they put in their models..

5157

[Intel]

Oh and add to the fact that CRP has next to $0 in the bank account now, so you will have further dilution and capital raisings at much lower prices....

[blackcap]

Oh and add to the fact that CRP has next to $0 in the bank account now, so you will have further dilution and capital raisings at much lower prices....
'
Thanks for posting your analysis there Intel, or should I say, Edison's analysis. Things as they stand look bleak for CRP as costs are increasing indeed. And with such prospects, the untried nature of it will no doubt create greater costs than initially anticipated. And yes the price sensitivity is spectacular.

[MAC]

You could be right and Edison could be right, time will tell, it will be an interesting watch.

[Balance]

Anyone can point towards any successful project which Chris Castle has been involved in since 1990?

[MAC]

Since I’ve some time here’s a balance to the view of the stock knockers on this thread when it comes to the rock phosphate market and the valuation of CRP.

Phosphate is a cyclical commodity like any other and tracks the Commodity Price Index reasonably well over time.

What the knockers won’t point out is that the price of rock phosphate in 2012, 2013 and 2014 is entirely irrelevant in assessing the valuation of CRP.

CRP have a mining permit for 35M tonnes for 20 years starting in 2015 and ending in 2035, perhaps a little more now they have picked up the additional prospecting permits.

The valuation of CRP is a function of the prospective discounted cashflow’s from operating revenues generated during this 20 year period from 2016 onwards.

Note on the chart below the price spike in rock phosphate in 2008, this was due to disrupted supply in North Africa due to political unrest, the dip in 2013 is due to a potash cartel breakup. These things will occur and will continue to occur over decades.

5172

[croesus]

Well put Mac, any fool can hide behind a nom de plume and be a knocker... one fool who I wont name, ( but will read this with in 30 minutes of my posting it ) is very vociferous on this site...

would have at most $6000 to his name and lives in a Caravan at the back of his brothers house... in his 50 s... but been bludging most of his life.

In fact .. take this as a chance to fess up..? you wont tho will you. ?? ( go on your feel better for it ) What about if I buy you 2 casks of wine and a bottle of cheap sherry ?

Lets see if he responds.

Regards

[janner]

Off Shore prospecting is expensive..

Does have good returns when all goes well....

Will a number 8 wire company be able to come up with the answers in this field ??

No !!.. IMHO..

[croesus]

Janner... smarten up.. Boskalis is not no 8 wire.

Have you done any research on CRP s partners, ????

obviously you are way out of your depth.

Suggest Bonus Bonds,

Regards

[janner]

Bonus Bonds..

Been into them from the inception.. Still have the same investment $700 hahaa..

Depth being the critical word..

Not out of it.. Just do not want to be any where near this project..

Many, Many, many, other places with better immediate returns available ..

Pie in the sky .. Or in this case.. Pie in the sea. Is not for me..

[MAC]

A good summary within this article,

http://agrihq.co.nz/article/chatham-rock-seeking-fast-5m?p=7

Things seem to be looking up again after that painful non time limited bureaucratic frickin delay unkindly provided by NZP&M. I’m pleased as an investor to know that the marine consent process is time limited to six months.

It could be a big year for CRP with the schedule looking a bit firmer now;

1. Complete final capital raising - January/February:
2. Apply for marine consent - February/March:
3. Marine consent outcome announcement - August/September:
4. Conformation of an operating contract with Boskalis – late 2014
5. Commencement of boat construction – late 2014
6. Dual listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange – late 2014.

[croesus]

Cheers MAC.

Once we get the Marine Consent, the S/P should rocket.

AOR... is a cheap entry....and could surprise with Kotuku

[hilskin]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11180675

Nothing new here but nice to see it getting some publicity in todays herald.

[MAC]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11180675

Nothing new here but nice to see it getting some publicity in todays herald.

It would be interesting to know how far along Boskalis are now with the detailed ship conversion and equipment design.

http://www.boskalis.com/press/news-archive/news-page/boskalis-to-undertake-detailed-design-of-offshore-phosphate-project-in-new-zealand.html

There was a suggestion by CRP that Boskalis would start the detailed design once the mining permit was granted but prior to marine consent approval and final FID.

ie: to make some use of the now gone permit delay to keep the design schedule on track.

[MAC]

“Dutch company Royal Boskallis is expected to confirm soon it will hasten spending”

http://agrihq.co.nz/article/boskalis-key-to-crp-capital-raising?p=6

The January Edison Research report suggested CRP and Boskalis were to meet in the next couple of weeks, and if I recall from the 2013 capital raising docs, there was an option left open for Boskalis to perform detailed ship conversion design work in parallel with CRP pursuing the marine consent process.

As it may pull the schedule forward quite a bit, let’s hope for an announcement.

[ziggy415]

Cheers MAC.

Once we get the Marine Consent, the S/P should rocket.

AOR... is a cheap entry....and could surprise with Kotuku

my sentiments exactly croesus....aor also have asian mineral resources shareholding and the vietnam mine is now producing nickel, copper and cobalt but i cant remember how big a shareholding they have got.....after several capital raisings which AOR couldnt afford to partake in, but they are on AOR books at 3 cents value but shares on Toronto exchange are now trading at 8 cents.AOR have stated they are looking to exit the mine shareholding to concentrate on nz and chattam rise but i am little worried the water depth is fairly deep to suck up nodules but time and money will tell

[MAC]

They’re in very capable operational hands Ziggy, lot’s of experience within Boskalis, operating in 75 countries with 1,100 vessels and equipment.

http://www.boskalis.com/home.html (http://www.boskalis.com/home.html)

I’ve never been so sure about that AOR theory that gets kicked about from time to time, AOR only have a 3.94% stake in CRP. Doubt if their ticker will really even twitch much when CRP flies.

Shareholders:

Subsea Investments 27%, Boskalis 19%, Odyssey Exploration 7%, Mineral Investments 6.4%, …....., AOR 3.94%

Page 34: http://static.squarespace.com/static/51d24098e4b0d519d0c065f5/t/51d63298e4b05a25fc1c1f41/1372992152778/Chatham_Rock_Phosphate_Limited_Annual_Report_31_Ma rch_2013___2599325_1.pdf

[ziggy415]

They’re in very capable operational hands Ziggy, lot’s of experience within Boskalis, operating in 75 countries with 1,100 vessels and equipment.

http://www.boskalis.com/home.html (http://www.boskalis.com/home.html)

I’ve never been so sure about that AOR theory that gets kicked about from time to time, AOR only have a 3.94% stake in CRP. Doubt if their ticker will really even twitch much when CRP flies.

Shareholders:

Subsea Investments 27%, Boskalis 19%, Odyssey Exploration 7%, Mineral Investments 6.4%, …....., AOR 3.94%

Page 34: http://static.squarespace.com/static/51d24098e4b0d519d0c065f5/t/51d63298e4b05a25fc1c1f41/1372992152778/Chatham_Rock_Phosphate_Limited_Annual_Report_31_Ma rch_2013___2599325_1.pdf
Bit of wishful thinking on my part i guess, ive ended up with a truck load of options in Aor and 14 million shares in chattam will give some value for Aor but same old problem, when cash issues are unable to be taken up your holding soon drops, but for chattam share holders all the best but its election year and a greens/labour govt aint goin to sanction any nasty company diiging the seabed

[MAC]

The venture being net environmental friendly aside, I agree it could be politically interesting, the schedule is important;

If the application is lodged before mid April, and as required a marine consent decision must be provided within six months, then approval will come prior to the election, probably in November.

In this case CRP may get some political assistance as National will not want to see a fair venture fail under its brand new legislation, especially in election year.

If the marine consent is lodged in May or later, than who really knows, CRP have a good environmental case, and I don’t really believe Labour will want to block all growth in NZ, that wouldn’t get them both employment and re-elected.

[croesus]

They’re in very capable operational hands Ziggy, lot’s of experience within Boskalis, operating in 75 countries with 1,100 vessels and equipment.

http://www.boskalis.com/home.html (http://www.boskalis.com/home.html)

I’ve never been so sure about that AOR theory that gets kicked about from time to time, AOR only have a 3.94% stake in CRP. Doubt if their ticker will really even twitch much when CRP flies.

Shareholders:

Subsea Investments 27%, Boskalis 19%, Odyssey Exploration 7%, Mineral Investments 6.4%, …....., AOR 3.94%

Page 34: http://static.squarespace.com/static/51d24098e4b0d519d0c065f5/t/51d63298e4b05a25fc1c1f41/1372992152778/Chatham_Rock_Phosphate_Limited_Annual_Report_31_Ma rch_2013___2599325_1.pdf

I think your looking at it from the wrong end.. if AOR have 3.94% of CRP.. it doesn't sound much, but I am guessing that 3.94% of CRP .. makes up a big share of AORs assets... so if CRP ... surges to say $1.... what would that mean for AOR NAV ... lots I suggest.

DISC currently 3 rd largest holder of AOR warrants

[MAC]

It's not for me but I wish you well with that approach Croesus, it's notable to hold a million shares of anything.

I'm looking at CRP as a circa $1.50 stock at years end, all going well, and once the permitry is dust and dual listing on the Toronto exchange is complete.

Should be enough upside for all.

[Roberto]

We must be getting very close to submission of the marine consent by now...

[hilskin]

I think March, will look into it and come back to you

[hilskin]

I think March, will look into it and come back to you

[hilskin]

From Feb 2014 factsheet that was emailed out a week or so ago.

Chatham Rock Phosphate has been granted a Mining Permit to extract New Zealand’s only major rock phosphate resource from the Chatham Rise. Obtaining this Mining Permit is the first of a two-part process, which also involves an application for an environmental Marine Consent.
The Marine Consent process takes six months, and will probably get underway in March. The process includes the opportunity for anyone with an interest to make a submission to the Environmental Protection Authority, and it will also involve formal hearings.

[Roberto]

From Feb 2014 factsheet that was emailed out a week or so ago.

Chatham Rock Phosphate has been granted a Mining Permit to extract New Zealand’s only major rock phosphate resource from the Chatham Rise. Obtaining this Mining Permit is the first of a two-part process, which also involves an application for an environmental Marine Consent.
The Marine Consent process takes six months, and will probably get underway in March. The process includes the opportunity for anyone with an interest to make a submission to the Environmental Protection Authority, and it will also involve formal hearings.

Thanks Hilskin - didn't receive that factsheet. Let's hope all goes smoothly and we're fully permitted by September.

[hilskin]

Media Release
25 February 2014

Chatham Rock Phosphate attends PDAC

Chatham Rock Phosphate will be an exhibitor for the first time at the
Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada convention, the world's
largest minerals investment and trade show being held in Toronto Canada next
week.

"It is THE place where the mining industry talks turkey and does business,"
CRP Managing Director Chris Castle said today.

He has attended the mining show for more than a decade but this year secured
a prime booth position among the 600-plus in the investor exhibition area.

Government agency New Zealand Petroleum and Minerals is also operating a
booth to promote New Zealand minerals projects and investment. Last year Mr
Castle was the guest speaker at the New Zealand Government-hosted function.

Mr Castle will be hosting the CRP booth with Najib Moutia, CRP's Canadian
based Vice President Strategy, who is responsible for sales and marketing.
He said the booth would provide a focus for people wanting to learn more
about CRP's innovative deep sea mining project. CRP's technical partner
Royal Boskalis will also be displaying information on its capability.

PDAC has been running since 1932 and the annual convention now has more than
1000 exhibitors and 500 speakers. The 30,000 people who come from more than
120 different countries attend hundreds of presentations, courses, workshops
and technical sessions during the four-day event.

CRP holds a strategic, multi-million tonne organic rock phosphate deposit
uniquely positioned to access Asian and Australasian fertiliser markets. It
was granted a 20-year mining licence in 2013 and has recently applied for new
prospecting licences both east and west of its existing licence areas that
could significantly increase the scope of resources. The company is
currently finalising its Environmental Impact Assessment for its Marine
Consent application.

[MAC]

Sometimes I think it’s worth holding a few CRP shares just for the colourful announcements, where else does the CEO let us know he’s off to Canada to talk turkey.

Hopefully some good exposure and final capital arises, I sense that if this can finally be knocked off in the next few weeks it’s onward and upward for CRP from this point.

Consented, TSK dual listed, and ship designing by years end.

[hilskin]

Sometimes I think it’s worth holding a few CRP shares just for the colourful announcements, where else does the CEO let us know he’s off to Canada to talk turkey.

Hopefully some good exposure and final capital arises, I sense that if this can finally be knocked off in the next few weeks it’s onward and upward for CRP from this point.

Consented, TSK dual listed, and ship designing by years end.

and if all that comes together, a $2.00+ SP to match. :) Still quite a bit of de-risking to get through but happy to hold and see what comes of it all and have a bit of fun along the way.

[croesus]

Moosie... Chris is smarter then your average Canuck.

BTW... I am a Napier Ratepayer, have been for over 30 years... and some idiot ( oops shouldn't shoot the messenger ) tried to charge me $15,, to visit you at the Museum last week... is the $15 for you, or all the other relics... very concerning !!!

Will reclaim my book if you have read it, ?

BTW.. listened to that Labour Idiot Cunliffe being interviewed on National Radio this week... what a phony... no wonder they are dead in the water

[Intel]

Would appear the boys at Wimmer financial are either the slowest investment bankers in history or they can't get anyone else on board from their "extensive network". Anyone got a date to when the cash runs out for crp?

Business class fares to toronto for cc and his wife will be eating up a fair chunk of the remainder anyway.

Cash as at 30 September of 764,000 + 240,000 in new capital. Wonder how much of that 1m is left?

All the best to people that still hold this thing....

[hilskin]

26 February 2014Chatham Rock Phosphate advises financing strategy
As recently advised CRP Managing Director Chris Castle recently made a repeat visit to London to meet UK based potential investors.

The visit proved to be successful.

Meetings were held with a number of investment groups that identified with the project and who indicated their interest in investing by means of private placement, subject to Chatham Rock Phosphate establishing a secondary listing on the London AIM market.

Accordingly the CRP board has agreed to proceed with the AIM listing process, which is expected only two to three months to complete (as there is no associated public offering).

In order to maintain our existing momentum, including filing our marine consent application (EIA) in the next few weeks, a decision has also been made to make a very attractively priced rights issue to existing shareholders. Details of this offer will be announced to shareholders on 14 March and the rights will be both renounceable and, subject to NZX approval, tradeable on the NZAX market. Shareholders will also be entitled to apply for shortfall from the offer in addition to their entitlement. It is also intended to establish a panel of underwriters in order to ensure that the issue is fully subscribed.

CRP holds a strategic, multi-million tonne organic rock phosphate deposit uniquely positioned to access Asian and Australasian fertiliser markets. It was granted a 20-year mining licence in 2013 and has recently applied for new prospecting licences both east and west of its existing licence areas that could significantly increase the scope of resources. The company is currently finalising its Environmental Impact Assessment for its Marine Consent application.

[hilskin]

Meetings were held with a number of investment groups that identified with the project and who indicated their interest in investing by means of private placement, subject to Chatham Rock Phosphate establishing a secondary listing on the London AIM market.

Does this sound legit or just a bit of hype to get investors to buy in on the rights issue? Surely if you were interested in investing in a company you would just do so. Anyone have any ideas on this, I'm still fairly new to this stuff, but sounds a bit strange to me. A bit of help please.

[MAC]

My anticipation would be that there are indeed UK investor(s) willing as stated but perhaps not quite enough to complete the final $6M capital raising required, CRP are legally obligated not to mislead on such a matter. How much of a balance should better become known on 14th March.

To date CRP have raised $25M they just need this final $6M and they are done. According to Edison, when the marine consents are attained, it is likely that key holders would exercise options providing a further NZ$11M. CRP have also previously advised of some form of agreement with Subsea investments as I understand and this NZ$11M would be in excess of what they require to take them into full operation.

The difficulty they have had in the final raising has been IMHO due to the regulatory delays, the EEZ legislation coming out of left field and the NZP&M bureaucrats taking much longer than they should. It knocked out the momentum.

So, this rights issue is probably the last opportunity to buy at these levels and potentially also receive further options. I might just well consider at a top up if the rights issue conditions looks attractive.

[hilskin]

Thanks MAC for putting me at ease, Bring on March 14 then.

[hilskin]

Article from Sharechat

http://www.sharechat.co.nz/article/e0ac6f86/chatham-rock-plans-listing-on-london-aim-exchange-within-three-months.html?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Chatham+Rock+plans+listing+on+London+ AIM+exchange+within+three+months&utm_content=Chatham+Rock+plans+listing+on+London+A IM+exchange+within+three+months+CID_d399de387d0df0 3503ee63bb37aa9809&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=httpwwwsharechatconzarticlee0ac6f86chatha m-rock-plans-listing-on-london-aim-exchange-within-three-monthshtml

[BlackPeter]

just went through the rights issue prospectus and wondered whether they will keep the promised deadline for filing their marine consent application - and then it pops up at as NZX announcement - just in time:

CRP
31/03/2014 16:45
GENERAL

REL: 1645 HRS Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited

GENERAL: CRP: CRP files draft Marine Consent application

Media Release
31 March 2014

Chatham Rock Phosphate files draft Marine Consent application

Chatham Rock Phosphate today submitted a draft Marine Consent application to
the Environmental Protection Authority - the culmination of four years work
and more than $25 million in investment.

The Marine Consent is the only major licence CRP now needs, having gained a
mining permit for its phosphate extraction project in December. The EPA, New
Zealand's environmental regulator, is expected to decide on CRP's application
in November after a full public process.

Including the proceeds of the rights issue presently underway, Chatham has
raised over $27 million from its existing shareholders and through placements
to qualified investors to finance extensive spending on science-based
research.

Managing Director Chris Castle said the CRP team was very proud of the work
contained in the application.
"Rigourous research by scientists has considered the relevant facets of what
we propose and demonstrates how we can minimise and mitigate environmental
impacts.

"We sincerely appreciate the input from all of our stakeholders that has
contributed to our thinking. We believe our work will satisfy any issues
raised.

"Having done our homework, we know this project stacks up technically,
environmentally and financially."

Mr Castle said the CRP's phosphate resource, located on the seabed of the
Chatham Rise, offers fertiliser security for New Zealand's primary industry,
has big export and import substitution potential, as well as environmental
benefits, making it a project of national significance.

The Environmental Impact Assessment forming the centrepiece of the Marine
Consent application will be considered under the Exclusive Economic Zone
environmental consenting regime that came into force in June last year as
part of the EEZ and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) legislation.

Supplementing the 459-page main document are more than 30 appendices, mostly
scientific reports and models. The information in the EIA will be publicly
available on the EPA website, and via a link on rockphosphate.co.nz, once the
EPA has accepted the application as complete. People are then able to read
the information, make submissions and attend public hearings during the next
six months.

Contact Chris Castle on +64 21 55 81 85 or chris@crpl.co.nz
End CA:00248935 For:CRP Type:GENERAL Time:2014-03-31 16:45:12

[sommelier]

Found these when I was getting fish and chips the other day. NZ Seafood magazine, links:
http://www.seafoodnewzealand.org.nz/media-centre/issues/proposal-to-extract-phosphate-from-chatham-islands-seabed-could-destroy-vital-fishery-writes-eric-barratt/
http://www.seafoodnewzealand.org.nz/media-centre/issues/strip-mining-threatens-protected-marine-area-and-future-of-sustainable-fisheries/

This was because I was reading an article that I can't find online, so I'll type up the interesting parts of the photo of it I took with my cellphone:

January 2014 Issue.

"Strip-mining the seabed would destroy ecosystems and wreck our reputation, writes George Clement"

"The environmental protection authority now has the task of deciding whether to grant marine consent When it considers the environmental and economic impacts, I hope the numbers count: the Chatham rise eco-system generates $160m of the $1.6 billion annual returns from seafood This equates to $2.4 billion over the 15 years of the proposed phosphate mining proposal -which promises to add only $900 million to New Zealand over the project's life. Why would any government put a sustainable income stream at jeopardy for a one-off sum of$900 million?" sic sic sic

Chris' latest environmental report said that the "permit covers 820km2 and we envisage our operations will affect about half that area over the life of the mine. That means less than a quarter of 1% of the Chatham Rise sea floor will be disturbed and even then only intemittently." Around 30km2 will be mined each year, "and over 15 years will amount to 450km2 or approximately 0.5% of the rise".

Come one CRP. Same piece of paper and at one point it says .5% will be 'mined' and .25% will be 'disturbed'.

"Sediment of 1mm thickness are predicted to extend no further than 8km along the seabed." So with a pessimistic view, that's an 8km band around the mining area that is affected, Sqrt(450)=21.21, so if it was a unrealistically efficient (conservative) square area, (21.21+2*8)^2 = 1384km2 of affected area + sediment. These numbers are getting bigger everytime I see them.

Holder at a descent loss atm.

[Food4Thought]

This business is a horrible thought for the environment, ethically, it would not be for me. I also don't like these big oil tanker sized processing ships coming into New Zealand waters to catch enormous tonnage of fish, smash a fish population, to dry for feed, and fatten up salmon.

[BlackPeter]

Found these when I was getting fish and chips the other day. NZ Seafood magazine, links:
http://www.seafoodnewzealand.org.nz/media-centre/issues/proposal-to-extract-phosphate-from-chatham-islands-seabed-could-destroy-vital-fishery-writes-eric-barratt/
http://www.seafoodnewzealand.org.nz/media-centre/issues/strip-mining-threatens-protected-marine-area-and-future-of-sustainable-fisheries/

This was because I was reading an article that I can't find online, so I'll type up the interesting parts of the photo of it I took with my cellphone:

January 2014 Issue.

"Strip-mining the seabed would destroy ecosystems and wreck our reputation, writes George Clement"

"The environmental protection authority now has the task of deciding whether to grant marine consent When it considers the environmental and economic impacts, I hope the numbers count: the Chatham rise eco-system generates $160m of the $1.6 billion annual returns from seafood This equates to $2.4 billion over the 15 years of the proposed phosphate mining proposal -which promises to add only $900 million to New Zealand over the project's life. Why would any government put a sustainable income stream at jeopardy for a one-off sum of$900 million?" sic sic sic

Chris' latest environmental report said that the "permit covers 820km2 and we envisage our operations will affect about half that area over the life of the mine. That means less than a quarter of 1% of the Chatham Rise sea floor will be disturbed and even then only intemittently." Around 30km2 will be mined each year, "and over 15 years will amount to 450km2 or approximately 0.5% of the rise".

Come one CRP. Same piece of paper and at one point it says .5% will be 'mined' and .25% will be 'disturbed'.

"Sediment of 1mm thickness are predicted to extend no further than 8km along the seabed." So with a pessimistic view, that's an 8km band around the mining area that is affected, Sqrt(450)=21.21, so if it was a unrealistically efficient (conservative) square area, (21.21+2*8)^2 = 1384km2 of affected area + sediment. These numbers are getting bigger everytime I see them.

Holder at a descent loss atm.

and guess who wrote the article in question? The author is Eric Barratt, the MD of Sanford. I guess this is a typical case of the pot calling the kettle black - with the minor difference that Sanford has already environmental convictions (http://www.3news.co.nz/US-case-costs-Sanford-US24-million/tabid/1160/articleID/282800/Default.aspx), CRP has not.

But even if we don't assume more sinister reasons (like not wanting ships in the neighbourhood able to check Sanfords records) - nobody likes new neighbours in what they thought are their pastures. The seafood industry fighting for our environment ... yeah right - give me a TUI!

[Food4Thought]

and guess who wrote the article in question? The author is Eric Barratt, the MD of Sanford. I guess this is a typical case of the pot calling the kettle black - with the minor difference that Sanford has already environmental convictions (http://www.3news.co.nz/US-case-costs-Sanford-US24-million/tabid/1160/articleID/282800/Default.aspx), CRP has not.

But even if we don't assume more sinister reasons (like not wanting ships in the neighbourhood able to check Sanfords records) - nobody likes new neighbours in what they thought are their pastures. The seafood industry fighting for our environment ... yeah right - give me a TUI!


Thanks for that BlackPeter.

[MAC]

I've been watching for years now. No need to step in until further along towards November imho. Flying well under the radar and could do a PE if EEZ is signed off on without issues. Hopefully Mr Castle has got one right for a change!

I couldn't comment on the trading side of things Moosie, that's your department, but it all seems a bit illiquid to me to wait too long.

A large proportion of shares on issue are held very loyally by the larger long term investors Subsea, Boskalis, Odyssey, Mineral Investments and Aotea (63%). This leaves a balance of only 37% or about $13M in shares on the NZAX.

If CRP secure $6M to $8M on the AIM market, it's possible that the AIM could set the share price going forward.

Would you not have to accumulate over time, buy the dips, to get a reasonable holding ?

[blackcap]

I couldn't comment on the trading side of things Moosie, that's your department, but it all seems a bit illiquid to me to wait too long.

A large proportion of shares on issue are held very loyally by the larger long term investors Subsea, Boskalis, Odyssey, Mineral Investments and Aotea (63%). This leaves a balance of only 37% or about $13M in shares on the NZAX.

If CRP secure $6M to $8M on the AIM market, it's possible that the AIM could set the share price going forward.

Would you not have to accumulate over time, buy the dips, to get a reasonable holding ?

Put in a bid at 34 cents Mac and I am sure you will be able to pick up millions :)

But in all seriousness, I am with Moosie on this one. Plenty of time to wait before the share price gets moving. And if memory serves me correctly, AOR is the cheaper vehicle to go through to get an exposure to this venture. So instead of buying CRP you would be better off buying AOR. That said if they (AOR) did not take up the rights then the discount may be gone. Should have another look when time permits.

[MAC]

Put in a bid at 34 cents Mac and I am sure you will be able to pick up millions :)

But in all seriousness, I am with Moosie on this one. Plenty of time to wait before the share price gets moving. And if memory serves me correctly, AOR is the cheaper vehicle to go through to get an exposure to this venture. So instead of buying CRP you would be better off buying AOR. That said if they (AOR) did not take up the rights then the discount may be gone. Should have another look when time permits.

I've been wondering that too Blackcap, we should know on 29th April how much has been taken up by the big players, if any, when the underwriter gets their allotment. AOR's not for me as it comes with additional risks, but I wish you well with that, should be enough in this venture for all to go around though.

[croesus]

MAC.

I respectfully dis agree.. re " AOR additional risks.... they have ( AOR) .. on sold a lot of the risk and cost re Brunner Oil Seeps ( Kotuku) to Mossman.. and hold shares in Mossman and also a profit percentage if this drill turns into the new Taranaki.

Agree most of the other assets ie Fiji, Vietnam etc are a lucky dip. But the company is debt free.

Moosie .. I agree " re for a change " .. but not in as I read your statement in a slightly cynical snide tone... more in a the guy has worked hard with a lot of projects, for his sake ( and mine and other shareholders ) he deserves a big one to come up trumps... nuff said.

Good Easter, to all posters.

BTW.. Moosie, presume you are getting some. ? ... its Rutting season for Moose.... good luck..

[croesus]

Cheers Moosie.

Was'nt having a go... agree with your comment on Dairy.

Re AOR... if this Brunner Oil Seep , comes up quids that will be a game changer....at least we know Oil is there, unlike most Drills, which are akin to that Game, " Battleship " I used to play as a kid.

[MAC]

Well, the rights issue seems to have gone very well, I would have liked to have picked up a lot more than I did in the oversubscription, surprised CRP didn’t make it larger actually, but I guess the underwriter are due they’re rightfully take.

So, Chatham Rock have a little time now to raise the final remaining $8M on the AIM market, incrementally up until November.

I would be entirely disappointed in management if they chose not to take their time over this a little, and, would be equally disappointed if they don’t now raise the bulk of the final capital well above the present share price.

After all the mining permit is held, the resource area may expand further, market sentiment is up with the recovery of the phosphate market and Chatham Rock are well placed, much much better than Trans-Tasman IMHO, to work through the marine consent process successfully.

It’s a stock that will be worth a heck of a lot more by December and there would be absolutley no point in just giving it away in May Chris.

[croesus]

Well said Mac.

Totally agree, if you have a minute... could you give us some details on the rising Phosphate market, ? I presume you mean that dodgy phosphate from Morocco we import... burning millions of gallons of Fossil fuels to get it here ... what percentage is the price up from last year... and is the reason less supply, or more demand.. or both. ?

Thanks very much ( in advance )

[Roberto]

Well said Mac.

Totally agree, if you have a minute... could you give us some details on the rising Phosphate market, ? I presume you mean that dodgy phosphate from Morocco we import... burning millions of gallons of Fossil fuels to get it here ... what percentage is the price up from last year... and is the reason less supply, or more demand.. or both. ?

Thanks very much ( in advance )

MAC may have a different source, but I find this very useful for tracking the phosphate price: http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=rock-phosphate

Cheers

Roberto

[croesus]

Cheers Roberto, was looking damn good just over 2 years ago....and definitely heading back up,

I wonder what the driver is for the Phosphate price... more demand or less supply. ??

[MAC]

Hi Croesus,

From a short term, being six months to a year or so, it’s nice to see rock phosphate prices on the rise or at a long term nadir.

It’s been a bit unfortunate up until recently that Chatham Rock have been trying to raise capital into a cyclical market, but year to date rock phosphate prices are up 7% and up three months in a row.

From a shoter term supply and demand perspective I understand the anticipated CAGR for the market to 2018 is around 2.8% pa.

regards, Mac

5750

[hilskin]

Now the waiting begins, bring on November.

GENERAL: CRP: Chatham Rock Phosphate files Marine Consent Application
CRP
15/05/2014 08:30
GENERAL

REL: 0830 HRS Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited

GENERAL: CRP: Chatham Rock Phosphate files Marine Consent Application

Media Release
15 May 2014

CRP files Marine Consent application - starts six month decision process
Chatham Rock Phosphate today submitted its formal marine consent application
to the Environmental Protection Authority. Should it be accepted as
complete, the six-month formal process is expected to lead to a decision in
November.

The application, representing four years' work and $25 million in investment,
is the second seabed mining proposal under the Exclusive Economic Zone and
Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012, and will be considered
through a full public process by an expert panel appointed by the
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).

The marine consent is the only major licence CRP now needs, having gained a
mining permit for its phosphate extraction project in December 2013. CRP
submitted a draft application to the EPA on 31 March 2014 and since then has
been working with the EPA to address the EPA's preliminary comments on its
application.

Managing Director Chris Castle said he was confident the application would
meet the tough standard demanded by the law.

"Our focus has always been two-fold: base the analysis on science and consult
with all interested parties to ensure their concerns are addressed through
the process. Input from both stakeholders and scientists is critical to make
sure all the bases are covered.

"The results of this analysis and consultation are that we understand what
the environmental impacts are likely to be and we can clearly demonstrate how
we can minimise and mitigate them. We know this project can deliver to its
shareholders financially, and to other stakeholders in terms of environmental
requirements."

CRP's phosphate resource, located on the seabed of the Chatham Rise, offers
fertiliser security for New Zealand's primary industry, has big export and
import substitution potential, as well as environmental benefits as a direct
application fertiliser, making it a project of national significance.

The main 400-plus page document comprising the Environmental Impact
Assessment is supplemented by 35 appendices, mostly scientific reports. The
information will be publicly available on the EPA website and via a link on
www.rockphosphate.co.nz should the EPA accept the application as complete.
All interested parties will then able to read the information, make
submissions and attend public hearings during the next six months.

[croesus]

Not sure I understand what your trying to say Moose.

Why should the Greens be "quaking ".. they should be all in supporting CRP,

ie is a far better phosphate, with out the toxic stuff, there are no huge carbon costs in transporting from Morroco,

It will earn us export dollars, create employment, and help our trade balance..


cheers

[Roberto]

Not sure I understand what your trying to say Moose.

Why should the Greens be "quaking ".. they should be all in supporting CRP,

ie is a far better phosphate, with out the toxic stuff, there are no huge carbon costs in transporting from Morroco,

It will earn us export dollars, create employment, and help our trade balance..


cheers

While that's all true, I think we'd be very lucky indeed if no objections are raised by the greens during the consultation process.

[MAC]

I agree with you Roberto, the likes of KASM will protest just because they have to justify their ‘rebel with a cause’ image to all their mates, and it’s election year so the Greens will do what they do.

As I see it though the land based environmental benefits seem to balance the sea bed effects, probably making the venture net environmentally positive for New Zealand inc.

IMO New Zealand may as well declare itself closed for business if this one doesn’t get approved and we can all go back to living in caves knowing the environment is perfect.

http://static.squarespace.com/static/51d24098e4b0d519d0c065f5/t/5344cf21e4b00805a20bd9fa/1397018401233/enviromental%20factsheet%209%20april%202014%20fina l.pdf

[hilskin]

Video from business TV ? posted on the website 14/05/2014

http://www.b-tv.com/features/watch-now.html?id=593

Looks like Chatham Rise is just the beginning.

[sommelier]

Cheers for the vid hilskin. Getting out there finally. Hopefully we will see more of this as they run up to the LSE. Is anyone going to their meeting?

[BlackPeter]

Here we go ... another milestone ticked. Admittedly not the hardest one, but it is still an indication they did a thorough job. Publication of their application is now pending.

[sommelier]

Phosphate prices reportedly continue to drop.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/agribusiness/10103011/Fertiliser-co-op-reduces-prices

[blackcap]

Its this kind of nonsense that really puts me off companies like CRP:

REL: 1403 HRS Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited

GENERAL: CRP: Edison Report says CRP share price at big discount

Media Release

Latest Edison report says CRP share price at big discount to unrisked
valuation

30 May 2014

Edison Investment Research's latest report says Chatham Rock Phosphate's
shares are trading at a significant discount to its unrisked valuation of
$1.76 a share.
The research note says CRP has delivered on its milestones and awaits the set
six month timeframe for marine consent in the final quarter of 2014 and the
finalisation of its seabed mining contract in the first half of 2015. The
marine consent is the last major consent the company needs.
"The high margin, low impurity, long-life, wholly owned Chatham Rock
Phosphate project does not require any development capital under the build,
own and operate mining project model."
The $1.76 unrisked valuation reflects the dilution of the company's capital
from its 1-10 rights issue and takes account of planned capital raising
associated with the London AIM listing.
The report notes CRP's preferred partner to build and operate its mining
dredge is Royal Boskalis but that there are four other dredging specialists
showing interest, which reduces the risk to CRP's production plans if
Boskalis elected not to proceed.
"With increased global exploration activity directed to marine deposits,
there is a strong appetite from global dredging companies to be involved in
the embryonic seabed mining industry. To reflect expected international
interest in the project, CRP is planning an AIM listing."
For further information please contact Chris Castle on 021 55 81 85 or
chris@crpl.co.nz
End CA:00251072 For:CRP Type:GENERAL Time:2014-05-30 14:03:50



noreply @ ANZ Securities
DirectTrade
ANZ New Zealand Securities Limited

Free Phone: 0800 805 777
Fax: +64 4 498 7064

Email: noreply@anzsecurities.co.nz

[Food4Thought]

Not a very good ethical investment in my opinion. This would significantly destroy an area on the ocean floor. The largest area of importance for the whole food chain. I like the concept, but don't like the consequence.

[MAC]

Well done to you Chris Castle to get an NZ startup to where it is, a fair and sound report too from Edison as always also.

With a successful AIM capital round and a marine consent there will be little to hold this one back.

http://www.edisoninvestmentresearch.com/research/report/chatham-rock-phosphate5

[blackcap]

[QUOTE=MAC;483746], a fair and sound report too from Edison as always also.



http://www.edisoninvestmentresearch.com/research/report/chatham-rock-phosphate5[/QUOTE

Sorry Mac, but what do you base that on? (the fair and sound bit that is)

[MAC]

Sorry Mac, but what do you base that on? (the fair and sound bit that is)

Hi Blackcap,

I've been researching CRP for some time now, in terms of a valuation workup, there are one or two points of difference I have with Edison's work, mainly surrounding local market pricing efficacy, but generally their research and their DCF is within cooey of my own humble efforts.

It's one of those venture propositions that are high up the risk/reward curve, many just see the risk, but that's what provides growth investors with researched opportunities.

many regards, Mac

[blackcap]

HI Mac, appreciate the reply and note your comments. I cannot juxtapose the disparity between what the market is valuing CRP at and what Edison values them at. Good luck with this investment, its not for me, although I do have an indirect interest via AOR.

[BlackPeter]

Not a very good ethical investment in my opinion. This would significantly destroy an area on the ocean floor. The largest area of importance for the whole food chain. I like the concept, but don't like the consequence.

Easy to take the moral high ground, but more difficult if you want to be honest as well ...

Yes, I assume the "vacuumed" area need a bit time to recover (and I am sure, we find more about this in the consent application), but than - we talk here something like one percent of the Chatham rise and this area mined over 20 years. Hardly a huge environmental impact.

As well - did you consider the environmental impact of the current supply of fertilizer? It needs to be transported all around the globe (high carbon footprint) and it contains much more heavy metal which we gets into the food chain. It comes as well from countries which hardly care about the environment.

But why would we want to allow the facts to spoil a great opportunity to protest?

[ziggy415]

OAO Uralkali Chief Executive Officer Dmitry Osipov favors stable potash prices as he considers how to manage output at the world’s biggest producer of the fertilizer.
That’s a relief for investors and peers after the company’s decision, under his predecessor, to end a venture with Belarus and ramp up production led to a price slump of about 30 percent.
“We are a responsible market player,” Osipov, 48, said in an interview in his Moscow office. “Market share is important for us but we don’t want prices to fall. It’s too early to say what utilization rate we will have in the second half.”
Just some info

[BlackPeter]

OAO Uralkali Chief Executive Officer Dmitry Osipov favors stable potash prices as he considers how to manage output at the world’s biggest producer of the fertilizer.
That’s a relief for investors and peers after the company’s decision, under his predecessor, to end a venture with Belarus and ramp up production led to a price slump of about 30 percent.
“We are a responsible market player,” Osipov, 48, said in an interview in his Moscow office. “Market share is important for us but we don’t want prices to fall. It’s too early to say what utilization rate we will have in the second half.”
Just some info



and the link to CRP is?

[MAC]

EPA marine consent submissions are now open.

I intend to make one in favour of the venture which I believe to be net environmentally friendly, and I think the majority of New Zealanders would agree with that aside from a few minority interest groups with agenda’s greater than Chatham rock Phosphate.

If you hold a similar view it is important to make a submission. I noted that only eight submissions were made in favour of Trans Tasman Resources however the environmental position of Chatham Rock is much more comprehensive and compelling in my view.

If you have lived in the Waikato as I have in the past you just have to look at the hundreds of choked streams, waterways and small lakes to see the effects of fertiliser runoff, it’s truly appalling. If Chatham Rock Phosphate will improve the environment and minimise the effects of a growing dairy industry then they get my vote over the seemingly relative minimal impact to the sea floor.

The environmental fact sheet is here;

http://static.squarespace.com/static/51d24098e4b0d519d0c065f5/t/5344cf21e4b00805a20bd9fa/1397018401233/enviromental%20factsheet%209%20april%202014%20fina l.pdf

The EPA submission website is here;

http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/chatham_rock_phosphate/Pages/default.aspx

[Joshuatree]

Do you know where i live Mac:eek2:

[BlackPeter]

EPA marine consent submissions are now open.

I intend to make one in favour of the venture which I believe to be net environmentally friendly, and I think the majority of New Zealanders would agree with that aside from a few minority interest groups with agenda’s greater than Chatham rock Phosphate.

If you hold a similar view it is important to make a submission. I noted that only eight submissions were made in favour of Trans Tasman Resources however the environmental position of Chatham Rock is much more comprehensive and compelling in my view.

If you have lived in the Waikato as I have in the past you just have to look at the hundreds of choked streams, waterways and small lakes to see the effects of fertiliser runoff, it’s truly appalling. If Chatham Rock Phosphate will improve the environment and minimise the effects of a growing dairy industry then they get my vote over the seemingly relative minimal impact to the sea floor.

The environmental fact sheet is here;

http://static.squarespace.com/static/51d24098e4b0d519d0c065f5/t/5344cf21e4b00805a20bd9fa/1397018401233/enviromental%20factsheet%209%20april%202014%20fina l.pdf

The EPA submission website is here;

http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/chatham_rock_phosphate/Pages/default.aspx

Hi MAC,

thanks for flagging this. I fully agree, while not without environmental impact, it does look that the benefits (cleaner and lower CO2 foot print than imported fertilizer) weigh much heavier that a temporary disturbance of a very small part of the Chatham Rise seabed. Huge economical benefits for the NZ economy as well (jobs - and good for the countries balance of payments).

Shall make a submission and encourage others to do so as well ... it is important that we don't leave the field to a small group of professional nay-sayers.

Discl: holding (a small parcel ...)

[ziggy415]

and the link to CRP is?
fertilizer...price...cost...financial viability

[BlackPeter]

fertilizer...price...cost...financial viability

feels worse than comparing apples with bananas ... The provided snippet was talking about a potash supplier in Russia - and CRP plans to supply phosphate. Yes, both can be used as fertilizer (and for other things as well) - but phosphate and potassium are in no way exchangeable (less than apples and bananas, which are to a certain degree substitutable, if you don't care what kind of fruit you want to eat).

If your ground lacks phosphates, than you need to add phosphates, no point in adding potassium - and vice versa.

[ziggy415]

feels worse than comparing apples with bananas ... The provided snippet was talking about a potash supplier in Russia - and CRP plans to supply phosphate. Yes, both can be used as fertilizer (and for other things as well) - but phosphate and potassium are in no way exchangeable (less than apples and bananas, which are to a certain degree substitutable, if you don't care what kind of fruit you want to eat).

If your ground lacks phosphates, than you need to add phosphates, no point in adding potassium - and vice versa.
true...i think the thing i got the most was the manipulation of prices by the big boys and one of the previous posts thought the price of fertilizer made chattams break even at best....sucking nodules from 400 meters below the surface still seems a bit pie in the sky for me but the rewards to the country to me are a winner if it works...i think the chattam islands will get new inforstructure so their keen as well.....time will tell

[MAC]

How to support CRP’s marine consent application

The Chatham Rock Phosphate marine consent application is now open for public submissions. As a shareholder you can help our application succeed by making a submission in support. Groups opposed to our application will be asking their supporters to submit, so we’re encouraging our shareholders to have their say.
We’ve included below a summary of key benefits of the project, which might help you with some ideas as to what to say. Below is some information from the Environmental Protection Authority website to make the process as easy as possible for you.

The EPA says a submission is not a vote for or against an application; it’s what your submission says that’s most important – not how many people say the same thing.
Further guidance is available from the information sheet ‘How to make a submission on an EEZ marine consent’. See the submission information sheet (http://www.epa.govt.nz/Publications/Information%20sheet%20-%20How%20to%20make%20a%20submission.pdf)

The EPA must receive submissions no later than 5.00pm (New Zealand Standard Time) on Thursday 10 July 2014. To make your submission using the online form click Online submission form (http://www.epa.govt.nz/sites/submissions/_layouts/FormServer.aspx?XsnLocation=/sites/submissions/FormServerTemplates/CRP.xsn&ClientInstalled=false&Source=http://www.epa.govt.nz/sites/submissions/FormServerTemplates/Forms/All%2520Forms.aspx&DefaultItemOpen=1) . You can attach a Word or pdf document at the end of the online submission form if you want to add further information.

Please note you must complete the online submission form within half an hour or it will time-out, in which case you will need to fill out the form again from the beginning.
Alternatively you can email, post or deliver a submission using this Word document Submission form (Word, 200 kb) (http://www.epa.govt.nz/Publications/CRP_MCA_Submission_Form.doc) It must reach the EPA and CRP before 5.00pm on Thursday 10 July 2014 by email, post or delivered in person.

If you’re emailing, send to CRPapplication@epa.govt.nz and format the subject line of your email with your name and Chatham Rock Phosphate Submission. If you email your submission to the EPA, it’ll be automatically forwarded to CRP.
Alternatively the postal address is - Environmental Protection Authority, Private Bag 63002 Waterloo Quay, Wellington 6140 and if you deliver in person take it to Environmental Protection Authority, Level 10, 215 Lambton Quay, Wellington

If you’re posting you’ll also need to send to - Attention: James Winchester, Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited, C/-Simpson Grierson, PO Box 2402, Wellington 6140, New Zealand.
If you’re delivering in person please mark it - Attention: James Winchester Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited, C/-Simpson Grierson, Level 24, 195 Lambton Quay, Wellington New Zealand.

If you need further information to guide you in preparing your submission check out ‘Having your say about an activity (http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/having_your_say/Pages/default.aspx)’ If you have questions about making a submission or don't understand parts of the submission form, please email CRPapplication@epa.govt.nz (CRPapplication@epa.govt.nz) or phone 0800 382 527 or +64 4 916 2426 (tel:%2B64%204%20916%202426) if calling from overseas.


Information about our Marine Consent proposal

Chatham Rock Phosphate (CRP) has now applied for an environmental marine consent to undertake seabed mining at 400 m water depth, about 250 km from the Chatham Islands and 450 km from the South Island.

The marine consent process has a six-month prescribed timeframe so interested parties can make submissions and be heard at public hearings. The EPA has appointed a panel of experts who will base their decision on the scientific evidence they hear. Environmental considerations are balanced against economic benefits. Assuming we receive consent at the end of the year we expect to start production in 2017.

Background


To recap, New Zealand scientists discovered the rock phosphate resource on the crest of the Chatham Rise in the 1950s. Mining the resource has only become viable with the rising price of phosphate and advances in marine technology. CRP has identified at least 35 million tonnes within the mining permit area – more than a 20-year supply at expected production rates.

While we have applied for a large area we are proposing to mine an average of just 30 km2 a year – the equivalent of what the fishing industry bottom trawls in just 8 hours.

Our technical partner, international dredging company Boskalis will use conventional dredging technology attached to a long pipe to suck the top 30 cm of sandy silt up to a large mining vessel. Mechanical sieving will separate the phosphate nodules (2 to 150 mm in size) and discharge the finer sand and silt from another flexible pipe near the seabed. No chemicals are involved.

CRP has spent more than $20 million on scientific research, including six CRP-funded surveys to the Chatham Rise. We have a highly skilled technical team (including three scientists who collected and interpreted most of the data in the 1970s and 80s) and our focus has been to:
· evaluate the likely environmental impact of the project
· identify ways to minimise and monitor effects
· define the resource and develop a mining plan

Stakeholder involvement has been central to the project. After talking to anyone with a potential interest (including environmental groups, the fishing industry, iwi and imi, media, etc) we’ve identified and investigated their concerns and provided information and mitigation options.

Environmental benefits

The project will have localised environmental effects on the seabed within our permit area but will also have significant environmental benefits. Some arise from substituting our product for phosphate fertiliser now sourced from Morocco and other distant locations.

The benefits of using local phosphate include:
It reduces water pollution from run-off when used as a direct application fertiliser because it releases slowly, requiring less frequent applications than conventional fertilisers, further reducing its carbon footprint
· It’s an organic New Zealand-origin product
· It offers security of supply
· It’ll reduce the carbon footprint by lowering transport distances
· It has one of the lowest known concentrations of cadmium of any phosphate rock, which will help prevent cadmium accumulation in New Zealand soils, which in some areas is already at high levels
· The rock is highly reactive, heightening its effectiveness as a fertiliser, and has strong liming qualities.

Benefits for NZ and Chatham Is

CRP expects to sell the product to New Zealand and export to at least eight countries in the Asia-Pacific. The project also has significant economic benefits, including making New Zealand $900 million richer, according to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research.

It will have particular benefits for the Chatham Islands. We’ll be able to supply cheap fertiliser; little is applied there because of prohibitive transport costs. Chatham’s Federated Farmers representatives estimate fertiliser could increase farm production 10-fold and add 350 new jobs. Given the current population is below 600, that increase in farm production could transform the local economy and improve the affordability of infrastructure such as power and transport.

What about fishing concerns?

Our mining permit area – covering less than 1% of the Chatham Rise - is not a fishing area. The research predicts sediment effects will be confined to a few kilometres of our mining area, about 250 km from the Chatham Islands.

https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=10dcb2b5a2&view=att&th=146a490c894f96f8&attid=0.1&disp=emb&zw&atsh=1
The Deep Water Fishing Group is concerned about possible impacts on commercial fishing. The key environmental effect will be sediment plume from the return of the fine material to the sea floor.

Modelling predicts those sediment plume effects will be very localised, with sensitive organisms affected up to 7 km from the mining ship. Scientists predict silt and clay concentrations higher than 100 mg per litre will last for no more than a few days in the immediate mining area. Sediment won’t rise more than 50 m above the seabed – well below the most biologically productive part of the water column where most fish are.


Chris Castle
Chief Executive Officer
Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited
Email: chris@crpl.co.nz
Cell: +64 21 558 185 (tel:%2B64%2021%20558%20185)
Skype: phosphateking
www.rockphosphate.co.nz (http://www.rockphosphate.co.nz/)

[easy money]

Tell me Mac..if there is a change of govt this election...do you know what view the labour party has taken with this project...

[MAC]

Tell me Mac..if there is a change of govt this election...do you know what view the labour party has taken with this project...

Hard to say, I would have thought all the political parties would probably have better fodder than a net environmentally friendly venture like CRP.

Hypothetically though if the next government, whatever that may be were to alter the EEZ legislation, the existing marine consents would likely roll over into whatever replaced it. Similarly the RMA has seen governments come and go without consent holders needing to re-seek approvals.

It’s a fixed timeline now and the EPA must make their ruling by November, so an approval is anticipated before a next government can be formed from a November election, likely in the new year.

CRP have a few things in their favour politically too over the Trans Tasman venture, and IMHO if Trans Tasman do receive their approval tomorrow, I would say CRP will have no trouble whatsoever.

The Chatham Island farming community (most of the population) will benefit, the proposal is net environmentally friendly, and probably most significantly it has a positive impact on the dairy industry in NZ and political concerns over the dairy industry effects on the environment.

A Labour/Greens coalition might even score some points for promoting organic, low cadmium, low runoff fertiliser over the present and ever expanding dairy industry practices. Perhaps even more points for a tariff on imported high runoff fertilisers.

[easy money]

Thanks for your reply..on paper it makes sense to just about all parties involved...very little down side if any in the long run..good luck with your submission..

[sommelier]

Looking for a quick plummet in CRP again. Last time support was 17c, it could easily hit that again.

[MAC]

Appears the EEZ has some teeth as TTR is denied a permit today! I'd guess there is less uncertainty (the main reason for the refusal) about CRP as the company appears to have done it's homework. Perhaps a landmark now as they could be the first to receive a pass?

http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/trans_tasman/decision/Pages/default.aspx

I agree Moosie, you can't compare the enormous amount of environmental research that CRP have undertaken or rather that Trans Tasman have neglected.

If the good environmental folk at the EPA wanted to show who was boss, they probably now have got that out of their system. If anything, it probably provides for a positive bias for the next one.

[ziggy415]

I agree Moosie, you can't compare the enormous amount of environmental research that CRP have undertaken or rather that Trans Tasman have neglected.

If the good environmental folk at the EPA wanted to show who was boss, they probably now have got that out of their system. If anything, it probably provides for a positive bias for the next one.
if you upset the good people at kasm...the local iwi...the marlbourgh muscle farms...the maui dolfins and right down to the sunlight from disturbed sediment upsetting the phyto plankton ...getting past the good people at EEZ was not going to be easy when the only benefit to nz was money. as TTR found out........the Chattams on the other hand is further away ...deeper...no dolfins.....and the local iwi are keen and the environmental foot print for nz farming looks good....the phyto plankton might be a bit peeved but 99 out of 100 is not bad......still not a guarantee to get the license ...still not sure if todays refusal is good for the chattams or not

[Bobcat.]

There's a lot of Orange Roughy down there -- I suppose they could put up a fight....

otherwise, yes, CRP has a much better chance of getting the required EEZ approval.

[MAC]

The Chatham rise rock phosphate due to it's natural physical properties will help reduce runoff into waterways and the phosphorus levels just like this.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Water-Care-results-for-Waikatos-Lake-Waikare/tabid/817/articleID/346341/Default.aspx

I would anticipate that many environmental groups may well support this marine consent application.

Not to mention the recreational users, fish and game, water sports groups, 100% pure tourist lobby, parks conversation groups, rural iwi, federated farmers, etc.

In years to come we may even see high runoff fertilisers disincentivised potentially leaving CRP quite well placed.

[Bobcat.]

It will also help our country's trade balance since most rock phosphate is currently imported.

[ziggy415]

The Chatham rise rock phosphate due to it's natural physical properties will help reduce runoff into waterways and the phosphorus levels just like this.

http://www.3news.co.nz/Water-Care-results-for-Waikatos-Lake-Waikare/tabid/817/articleID/346341/Default.aspx

I would anticipate that many environmental groups may well support this marine consent application.

Not to mention the recreational users, fish and game, water sports groups, 100% pure tourist lobby, parks conversation groups, rural iwi, federated farmers, etc.

In years to come we may even see high runoff fertilisers disincentivised potentially leaving CRP quite well placed.
hi mac,have you read the EEZ report for TTS, its 100 pages of gobbldy gook sprinkled with a few quotes and rules and regulations and i was amazed when some mussel farm in the marlbourgh sounds was concerned that during La Nina weather patterns less muscells grew and they somehow assocsiated that with sediment in Taranaki.....BUT my biggest concern from investors point is its 100% or nothing...ie Big bucks if it comes off but zero return if not

[MAC]

The interesting think about risk is that folk including myself at times just initially look at consequence, when we really also need to consider likelihood and mitigations also.

And do you know Ziggy if you go back on this thread a year or so, you will see that I used to describe it as a binary risk, but the more I looked into it and researched the more I’ve realised it’s not like that.

Not all ventures are the same, they all have their own merits and drawbacks to be assessed and the EPA don’t just flip a coin, the likelihood of achieving an approval comes down to both the efficacy of the proposal, and how well the company have researched the environmental effects and have consulted with interested parties.

All things humans do affect the environment and each venture has to offer both economic prosperity and sufficient effort in mitigating the environmental effects.

I think CRP are in quite a unique position in that what they do in the ocean will indeed harm some creatures, however the environmental benefits the venture will bring on land IMO will out way those effects.

Add to that all the economic benefits to the New Zealand economy, to Chatham Islanders, and to New Zealanders generally, it all looks prospective to me.

[robbo24]

I don't seem to recall the term "kicked off" being used very often during my LLM research in RMA law.

Alas, the EPA have "kicked off" the process, I see, according to the announcement? :eek2:

[Bobcat.]

http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/content/en/mineweb-exploration?oid=244830&sn=Detail

It's been reported that the EPA investigation into CRP's application will take at least 6 months to complete. I won't be buying shares yet.

[robbo24]

http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/content/en/mineweb-exploration?oid=244830&sn=Detail

It's been reported that the EPA investigation into CRP's application will take at least 6 months to complete. I won't be buying shares yet.

This is the first time I've looked at this thread and into this stock...

I guess if consent is not granted that makes the stock fairly, well, marginal? :eek2:

So, who has perused the content of the application?

[easy money]

Yes Bob its sink or swim....like flipping a coin....it would appear the CRP have put at lot more work into there application....I think it will go ahead...

[robbo24]

Yes Bob its sink or swim....like flipping a coin....it would appear the CRP have put at lot more work into there application....I think it will go ahead...

A lot more work into their application since they withdrew their original application last year.

Can you please give me a link to the old one and the new one? It would be interesting to compare.

[Intel]

I was told by someone that used to work at p&M that the mining consent took so long to come through because a lot of information was missing and they had to continually chase CRP to get it. In fact the exact word he used to describe them was a "joke". This was clearly reported in a different light by CC.

Based on that and the inherent "porkies" I have been told by CC in the past, I wouldn't put a lot of trust or belief in him.

My view and it's based on real information.

I await the differing opinions

[easy money]

I was told by someone that used to work at p&M that the mining consent took so long to come through because a lot of information was missing and they had to continually chase CRP to get it. In fact the exact word he used to describe them was a "joke". This was clearly reported in a different light by CC.

Based on that and the inherent "porkies" I have been told by CC in the past, I wouldn't put a lot of trust or belief in him.

My view and it's based on real information.

I await the differing opinions

Some one has listened to you..share price dropping like a stone..

[Arndale]

Some one has listened to you..share price dropping like a stone..

Having said that, it appears just under $8k has changed hands at this point.

[lambton]

Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.

Classic case right here.

Whether CRP makes it or not with an application to mine (which I think is less than 50% at best), there will be an on going call for shareholders to stump up more funds while the cash burn goes on. Dilution is generally inevitable, an issue which the novice tends to overlook either not having a big enough wallet to continue to invest or ignoring while focusing on the end post.

[MAC]

Whether CRP makes it or not with an application to mine (which I think is less than 50% at best), there will be an on going call for shareholders to stump up more funds while the cash burn goes on. Dilution is generally inevitable, an issue which the novice tends to overlook either not having a big enough wallet to continue to invest or ignoring while focusing on the end post.

I think you will find it is intended that the venture is to be funded by the operator and not by CRP. There are four prospective operators that were short listed and who are willing to be contracted, the preferred prospective operator is Boskalis as 20% shareholder and technical adviser to the venture.

CRP as the prospective permit holder and marketing company still require, as has long been planned and understood by investors, another NZD$8M in capital to become fully funded through to profitability.

Chris Castle is in the UK at present to administer dual listing on the AIM exchange. Earlier in the year CRP advised that an investor(s) were waiting in the wings but required AIM listing as a pre-requisite.

When achieved during the next few weeks, all capital raising will be entirely done and dusted, quite a significant milestone in itself, let's see, shouldn't be long now.

Genuinely hope this assists you Lambton.

kind regards, Mac

[sommelier]

Crp changes from link to computershare, and it's related to the AIM listing. Is anyone knowledgeable about why this matters? What's the difference?

[biker]

Crp changes from link to computershare, and it's related to the AIM listing. Is anyone knowledgeable about why this matters? What's the difference?

Ever tried dealing with computershare? Try their new investor centre, especially if you have trust and individual holdings in NZ and Aust and want to use the same email. A feeeking time wasting complicated nightmare. From a shareholders point of view, CRP have made a stupid move.

Link on the other hand, user friendly, simple and straight forward. Chalk and cheese.
Wouldn't be surprised if computershare is much cheaper to try and attract or retain customers.
It reminds me of dealings with Telecom, which I have long put behind me.

[MAC]

EPA marine consent submissions for Chatham Rock are due this week folks, doesn’t take much time or effort in support of the venture.

The EPA must receive submissions no later than 5.00pm (New Zealand Standard Time) on Thursday 10 July 2014. To make your submission using the online form click Online submission form (http://www.epa.govt.nz/sites/submissions/_layouts/FormServer.aspx?XsnLocation=/sites/submissions/FormServerTemplates/CRP.xsn&ClientInstalled=false&Source=http://www.epa.govt.nz/sites/submissions/FormServerTemplates/Forms/All%2520Forms.aspx&DefaultItemOpen=1)

[Intel]

EPA marine consent submissions for Chatham Rock are due this week folks, doesn’t take much time or effort in support of the venture.

The EPA must receive submissions no later than 5.00pm (New Zealand Standard Time) on Thursday 10 July 2014. To make your submission using the online form click Online submission form (http://www.epa.govt.nz/sites/submissions/_layouts/FormServer.aspx?XsnLocation=/sites/submissions/FormServerTemplates/CRP.xsn&ClientInstalled=false&Source=http://www.epa.govt.nz/sites/submissions/FormServerTemplates/Forms/All%2520Forms.aspx&DefaultItemOpen=1)

Out of interest, and dont take this the wrong way, but do you disclose your inherent conflict of interest in your submission? It would be interesting to know if it is appropriate to do so

[edc]

https://www.greens.org.nz/submissions/submission-epa-chatham-rock-phosphate-proposal-mine-chatham-rise

Gareth Hughes didn't even touch on the environmental benefits, nor did he make a case for sourcing from Morocco instead. Seems like he formed an opinion before evaluating the evidence and only information supporting his confirmation bias went in to his submission.

[goldfish]

Thats the greens for ya, could be the best thing to happen to the country and environment but if we have to move a rock to get it then they are against it. We be back in caves soon if they get there way.

[pietrade]

As the old saying goes - "There's none so blind as those who will NO see". Gareth Hughes offers well-reasoned objections for opposing the application - "...As seen in the recent TTR decision, uncertainty as to the scope and significance of the potential adverse environmental effects, and the inability of conditions to manage these uncertainties was central to the rejection of TTR's application.[3]
CRP's application is similarly rife with uncertainty. The environmental effects of the project, particularly to the benthic environment, are not well understood.
These uncertainties are exacerbated by the sheer depth of the project. While CRP have described their proposed mining area as "relatively shallow water depths",[4] the project would in fact be the deepest seabed mining operation in the world.[5] Much less is known about the environments that exist at these depths, and there are no international examples to follow...."

Given humanity's PROVEN ability to screw up the very environment that sustains it, surely the precautionary principle must apply - and be endorsed by any of the species that still have an active brain between their ears !!!!

[goldfish]

Oh no some worms somewere in the middle of nowhere at the bottom of the ocean, in a tiny area, may be disturbed by a plume of sand, lets do nothing even though it could greatly benefit the country economically and environmentally.
We still be in caves if it was up to the greenies.

[blackcap]

As the old saying goes - "There's none so blind as those who will NO see". Gareth Hughes offers well-reasoned objections for opposing the application - "...As seen in the recent TTR decision, uncertainty as to the scope and significance of the potential adverse environmental effects, and the inability of conditions to manage these uncertainties was central to the rejection of TTR's application.[3]
CRP's application is similarly rife with uncertainty. The environmental effects of the project, particularly to the benthic environment, are not well understood.
These uncertainties are exacerbated by the sheer depth of the project. While CRP have described their proposed mining area as "relatively shallow water depths",[4] the project would in fact be the deepest seabed mining operation in the world.[5] Much less is known about the environments that exist at these depths, and there are no international examples to follow...."

Given humanity's PROVEN ability to screw up the very environment that sustains it, surely the precautionary principle must apply - and be endorsed by any of the species that still have an active brain between their ears !!!!

Sorry Pietrade, but I do not really care about the greens concern on this one. Its a small area in the vast Pacific Ocean and the environmental effects of the project locally could be "devastating",but if you look at the bigger picture it would be a miniscule disruption. You say "much less is known about the environments that exist at these depths. Exactly, so if we change those environments... no one will be any the wiser. Also getting that phosphate there will enable the environment to be saved elsewhere.

[Cowboy]

Reading Mr Hughes’s submission one cannot help but observe it looks good, is impressively formatted and is unsurprisingly a predictable diatribe which reflects the written expression disciplines he has no doubt accumulated through his study and degree in religious studies, history and politics gained from Victoria University (source, Google)
Reading his ‘fact sheet’ which outlines his experiences to date (which amongst others, include stints for Greenpeace, on the Rainbow Warrior, GE issues and fishing campaigns) a little known achievement of his, which every contemporary New Zealander can be expressly thankful for, is the fact that through his efforts, Kiwis now evidently have the choice to opt out of receiving phone books! So topical and earth-shattering, eh – how did we ever live without this?
Trouble is, his obviously self-penned biography is missing one vital ingredient – he has never had a job. Like so many of his politician cronies and others, getting their hands dirty by producing or making something that can be sold internationally that provides wealth for this nation and its peoples is something he and many have never experienced. But that’s what tens of thousands of rural New Zealanders do every day of every week of every year against the unpredictablities of weather, currency rates, competition, bureaucratic idiocy and the indifference to the vagaries of this way of life from politicians of every colour, to mention just a few!
Every day, rural people and their businesses and thus their livelihoods are at risk from any or all of these occurrences (as of course, are many non rural businesses too) but here on the land our soils are such that they simply will not produce the quality or the quantity of wholesome food that the world’s peoples want and are entitled to. Thus we need the benefits that science has provided in the form of natural fertilisers that allow these aims and objectives to be met!
And if Mr Hughes is not against the use of fertilisers (it wouldn’t surprise me if he was) then why would he not want to allow us producers to source the required material from a New Zealand source with its attendant benefits, instead of from an area of the world (North Africa) where anarchy, savagery and instability are the norm?
Sure, the CRP proposal is innovative and bold but it has been studiously researched (at a cost to investors of 25 millions of $) – people and individuals who refuse to believe that there is no room for calling a halt to new ideas or to closing their eyes to discovering new ways to better the lot of the inhabitants of this world but in doing so recognize (as all thinking people do) that the environment in which we live must be treated sensitively and with respect.
An earlier poster (goldfish) remarked that we would probably be living in caves if these so called ‘green’ individuals got their way! Probably right, but Mr Hughes and his cronies will still turn up every day to their air conditioned/heated offices provided by you and me whilst we are deep in the mud, the rain, the snow and the frost creating the wealth and well- being that he will keep his arms open wide for – after all it is his fundamental human right isn’t it?
My advice to him and his ilk is go, get a job – there’s one here if you want – 20 acres of grapes need pruning (6 days a week) and 153 cows are being nurtured night and day prior to calving (7 days a week)
If that holds no appeal, I see that amongst his vision for New Zealand includes support of the ICT sector (I assume that means Information and Communications Technology) then he might like to campaign vigorously on our behalf for the allocation of broadband out here in rural Hawke’s Bay– very few have it but then again I’m sure that he does and it’s a safe bet he won’t personally be paying for it – a politician’s perk no doubt!
Whether it be from dullards wearing suits or sandals, wealth producers both in town and country are fed up with these no doubt well intentioned but hopelessly naïve misfits deciding how we run our businesses and our lives and yet like all of us, they want the best possible outcomes for the entire human race!
Some of us are doing our best to provide it – scribes and seat warmers like him are not and for me they deserve to be treated with disdain and derision.
Research is the process of going up alleys to see if they are blind. ~Marston Bates


[MAC]

I think this bodes really very well, looking forward to the AGM in a couple of weeks;

“While a final analysis of the submissions will not be available until early next week CRP understands around 240 submissions have been received with a healthy proportion of these in favour of the application. In contrast, 4,702 submissions were received in respect of the recent Trans-Tasman Resources application, with 99.5% opposing the proposal”

“This lack of large numbers opposing our project implies a significantly higher level of community support. An additional benefit is the hearings will be much less burdened with repetitive, in-expert opinions and can more easily and effectively proceed with a more informed decision making process.”

http://www.rockphosphate.co.nz/news/2014/7/12/media-release-crp-marine-consent-application-submissions-close

[blackcap]

I think this bodes really very well, looking forward to the AGM in a couple of weeks;

“While a final analysis of the submissions will not be available until early next week CRP understands around 240 submissions have been received with a healthy proportion of these in favour of the application. In contrast, 4,702 submissions were received in respect of the recent Trans-Tasman Resources application, with 99.5% opposing the proposal”

“This lack of large numbers opposing our project implies a significantly higher level of community support. An additional benefit is the hearings will be much less burdened with repetitive, in-expert opinions and can more easily and effectively proceed with a more informed decision making process.”

http://www.rockphosphate.co.nz/news/2014/7/12/media-release-crp-marine-consent-application-submissions-close

Thanks for posting that Mac, that is heartening to hear. I am inadvertently a CRP shareholder via my exposure due to my holding in AOR. Although I do not like the metrics with CRP I do hope they do well and as such hope that the application is successful and if it is see a healthy re-rating of the prospects of CRP. The AGM this year should be interesting no doubt.

[goldfish]

Yes thanks for that mac, picked up my first small parcel on fri at 20, tryed to buy at bottom but dont think it will be.
Been watching and wanting this stock for a while now.
Will hold till they get the go ahead or not, then go from there.
If they can pull this off i think its going to be a great stock to hold.

[MAC]

I think you may have done really quite well Goldfish.

With CRP raising remaining capital on the AIM at a book build price (with a minimum floor of NZ$0.25) and with only four months left to run on the marine consent application, you may very well have picked it at a time when many, from today forward, may now be quite comfortable with the level of submissions received.

https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/193926.pdf

Let’s see what the hearing now brings but I suspect there won’t be a share to be had in November. De-risking leads to moves toward valuation and most have that at around $1.70 or thereabouts.

[Joshuatree]

Just in case posters haven't seen this from Gaynor in NZ Herald

The next week Aorere Resources and Chatham Rock Phosphate, two companies controlled by Chris Castle and his partner Linda Saunders, hold their annual meetings in Wellington. Castle has been associated with a number of unsuccessful listed companies in the past.
Castle is the managing director of Aorere, which has a stake in Chatham Rock Phosphate and a number of mining companies. He is also managing director of the phosphate company.
One of the issues raised by Aorere and Chatham Rock is the additional consulting fees paid to directors. This is an issue with a number of listed companies.
Chatham Rock shareholders approved total director fees of $150,000 at the company's 2010 annual meeting yet directors, excluding Castle, were paid total consulting fees of $564,300 in the March 2014 year.
Saunders was paid $221,600 for her Chatham Rock corporate affairs role in the same period.
These consulting fees are paid in addition to the approved fees paid to directors and they should be carefully scrutinised by shareholders, particularly when they look excessive.

Disclose I lost money in widespread; never again.

[blackcap]

CRP shareholders need to question Castle and Sanders at the AGM and not sit there and drink beer like sheep like at last years AGM. Till now most Castle vehicles (wid aor crp etc) have been wealth destroyers as evident by a declining share price. Lets hope that CRP can get the go ahead and not go the way of ASN, KSM etc.

[Snow Leopard]

from the CRP Environmental Impact Assessment.



Benthic Protection Area
Approximately half of CRP’s existing and proposed prospecting and mining licence / permit area lies within the eastern part of this BPA (Figure 6 in Section 2.4.3) and represents approximately 59 % of the BPA. The Mid-Chatham Rise BPA is one of 17 BPAs established by the Government with the cooperation of the deep water fishing sector (refer to Section 2.4.3). The seabed in this area is protected from fishing by benthic trawling or dredging.
[my emphasis]

I think it is quite a simple decision to make - you can not dig up even part of a BPA.
Outside of that area judge it on it's merits.

Best Wishes
Paper Tiger

[MAC]

Clearly there are very few submitters who would agree, and there is a good reason for that, aside from all the good overwhelming environmental benefits that CRP offer;

http://www.rockphosphate.co.nz/news/2014/7/12/media-release-crp-marine-consent-application-submissions-close

There are many marine national parks in New Zealand waters, but benthic areas are not national parks, a common confusion.

BPA’s are areas where specific regulations cover the fishing industry, the fishing industry is not directly regulated by the EEZ.

The EEZ regulates the fledging marine mining industry, the mining industry is not regulated by BPA’s.

[winner69]

Bad mouthing KASM is bad form - must be getting a bit worried

[Snow Leopard]

Whilst a better reply than at least one of your responses (http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/07/10/more-mining-our-protected-places/) to an opposing view:


MAC says:JULY 10, 2014 AT 9:03 PM
Hey Gareth, you’ve eaten too much dope and smoked too many mung beans mate, you must like red lakes in the Waikato because you don’t seem to like organic fertilizer
It is not actually very good is it?



Clearly there are very few submitters who would agree,
As you currently do not know how many, there is no clearly very few.



and there is a good reason for that,
There is? What is it?



aside from all the good overwhelming environmental benefits that CRP offer;

Overwhelming are they? That is yet to be established.




http://www.rockphosphate.co.nz/news/2014/7/12/media-release-crp-marine-consent-application-submissions-close

They are bound to say that aren't they!




There are many marine national parks in New Zealand waters, but benthic areas are not national parks, a common confusion.

and even if so - immaterial to the discussion.




BPA’s are areas where specific regulations cover the fishing industry, the fishing industry is not directly regulated by the EEZ.

At last you actually quote something factual and that I can agree with.




The EEZ regulates the fledging marine mining industry, the mining industry is not regulated by BPA’s.
The EEZ regulates nothing.

The marine mining industry (which has yet to fledge?) is/will be regulated by numerous government ministries and departments. Currently we are concerned with an EPA decision whether to permit operations.

Paper Tiger

[Joshuatree]

Putting my environmental concerns aside; I'm posting on here as a foil , a balance to MAC's very reasonable, non personal.... but CONTINUAL promotion of this stock. Even Gaynor has informed us of Managements track record(failed companies) and Agenda; making a good living over many, many years regardless of shareholders losing(speaking generally and for myself); after all theres always a new lot around the next inheritance.; YEAH . Think about it are you a Investor or a Gambler? What are the odds of CRP getting consent? Who knows. If you've done research on this and past failures and you have money that you're prepared to actually really lose for EVER if consent is NOT forthcoming.Who worked for Brierly way back when it was the mkt darling issuing free shares or options? galore before the big crash. A lot of people still roll their eyes even now and wouldn't ever invest in the NZX which is really sad ...BYL, Chase, Equiticorp etc. Remember the 2 Rules. Rule no 1 never lose money Rule No 2 Don't forget rule no 1. Remember its your money NOT Mac's or Chris Castles that you are putting on the line. But if you want a punt go for it; the longest barge pole won't hit the bottom tho; so be prepared to fall in.

Extra . I see PT has posted before me in a similar vein, thanks .

[winner69]

According to a NZIER economic report on this one group that benefits if the project goes ahead is Retail Trade

Warehouse / Briscoes etc should hope it works out eh

[MAC]

Thanks Joshuatree for your kind words, I agree with you that the director fees are too high, the majority of shareholders voted for these increases, but not myself.

As I’ve said on this thread a number of times, CRP is not for the faint hearted, both the prospective rewards and the risks are high, and no one should mindfully put all their eggs into one basket, diversification is the best means of managing risk, I too also don’t invest any more than I am prepared to lose in any one stock.

Everyone gets a say, and I like to provide a balance, perhaps just because I have the time and don’t mind representing shareholders who are quietly positive, if they were not so they would not be long termers. There are so many on this forum that are just cynical, at times slanderous or just like to knock the heads off tall poppies for self gratification.

Research speaks for itself and should be openly shared, and at the end of the day that’s all I really take away from this forum.

I've researched CRP for a long time now, I've found Chris Castle to be a very open communicator, and he has never failed to answer any of my relentless probing FA questions and enquires.

I feel sorry for you if you have lost money in Widespread, I was never a holder so probably can't appreciate that, but I do consider that there is a lot to Chatham Rock and it is a different company.

[winner69]

Clearly there are very few submitters who would agree, and there is a good reason for that, aside from all the good overwhelming environmental benefits that CRP offer;



But no doubt a lot of passion in those submission from those who don't agree

Suppose black and white - passion for a better world v those who just want to make a buck

Did you put in a submission MAC - I did

[Joshuatree]

Chris Castle is almost as good as you MAC . How many posters are believing you and him and have put good money onto this Roulette Wheel. If you really cared about your fellow posters you wouldn't be incessantly promoting/softly softly ramping this HIGH risk venture but quietly backing yourself with excess funds you are prepared to throw away. Im sorry but I'm very suspicious of your agenda/connection to this company and my agenda/concern is good people being duped and losing their funds.

[winner69]

Joshuatree .....but Edison say CRAP worth $1.70 .....and they global guru analysts

Just wait until they come out with $2.20 for PEB (totally derisked of course)

[MAC]

I’m a long term growth/value investor Joshuatree, longer than most, with quite a diverse of range of holdings, I research my investments thoroughly and am duly positive about each one of them, else I would not be holder. It’s served me well and has long since allowed me to give up the salaried life and to become a full time portfolio investor.

I have never sold CRP, only ever accumulated, and have no intention of doing so, I have little care for what the short term SP does, nor any motivation in ramping anything. If you want to play that silly game, sight my holding and send me a $250 bottle of wine you are most welcome.

I can understand that you have lost money on AOR/widespread in the past, I think at sometime or another we have all lost money on something. The only advice I have for you is to try to find some way to get over it and move on, if airing you’re baggage on the internet is you’re way of doing that, then fair enough, each to their own, I honestly and sincerely hope it works for you.

[winner69]

I see Chris put out an NTA for AOR after Mosman plummeted 25% on the AIM on Friday. At least he's consistent!!!

Did you see it was signed

C Castle
DUBAI

Wonder if Linda with him

[Intel]

As I have been advidly against this stock from a valuation perspective due to my views around the phopshate market I would like to point out to sharetrader members the absolute mockery that is issuer paid research and more specifically CRP's. Edison used to put a valuation matrix based on FX, phosphate price etc (picture attached). They no longer use the matrix so I had to use Sep 2012 and Aug 2013 for my example. They only show a sensitivity table to +-10% of their base case assumption which as I can only speculate but spot prices have adversely moved against CRP that they dont want to show them.

Anyway what I am saying is that in 2012 based on their base case of USD at 70c and phosphate at $150 a tonne, they valued CRP at 1.87. In Aug 2013, on the same metrics, they valued CRP @ 2.73 (cicra 50% increase without changing any assumptions). That is so inherently ****ed up and if anyone says its because of teh time value of money I'll slap them :pas the project has been continually pushed out

Anyway have a look at the picture (I added in the value based on current spot rates) and tell me what you think. I personally am so against that type of research and the way that companies promote it. It makes me sick.

PS this stock is worth nothing at the moment. MAC would differ though as he thinks its worth a 1.70, coninicdentally the same price he thinks PEB is worth. Maybe you have your models mixed up, anyway, happy to find out the underlying reasons why you think it is actually worth that and how you form a view around recovery in phosphate prices as that is the only way I cans see CRP becoming NPV positive.

PLease dont take this as an assault on you MAC, its not intended to be that way, I just think if people are touting extreme views they should be able to back them up.

6007

[blackcap]

PS this stock is worth nothing at the moment.

6007

You are very correct with that statement. If the price of phosphate does not improve CRP is a worthless project a bit like BRL if the price of coking coal does not improve.

[MAC]

I don’t have any extreme views on any stocks Intel and have appreciated your bearish posts in the past as they have led to me investigating one or two things. Since you asked though, I have the time, and I think there should be more FA discussion in general, why not;

I don’t see any issues with Edison’s long run base case of $125/tonne qualified by specific local market adjustments, nor with the operational cost at $70/t as this arises from Boskalis feed analysis. I don’t agree though with the efficacy of all Edison’s work in respect of local market adjustments.

Generally though, I find both Edison’s research and valuation within cooey of my own work.

CRP has a very consistent and experienced shareholder base, and that is also suggestive that the larger investors are also quite satisfied with their own internal analysis and with the risk/reward position of the venture. Whilst, I’ve been a holder I don’t recall Subsea, Boskalis, Odessey or MIL having ever sold or even rebalanced. Together they hold circa 80% of shares on issue.

Boskalis have been operating for over 100 years, have 1,100 vessels operating in 77 countries, and although they will have some frustrations with regulatory risk and delay, as we all do, I do also take at least some confidence from their consistent 18% holding and their continued support of the venture. It was good to hear recently that they will be providing first hand evidence at the EPA hearing, not something they have to do.

It is the long run price of phosphate over the 15+ year mine life that is important not spot price. Discounted cashflows are estimated from an assessment of the future market and forward earnings. The market will both go up and down during that duration, but at the end of the day dairy farms still require fertiliser, there is increasing global demand for protein, and CRP will have a high end product within the phosphate market.

6008

[Intel]

I don’t have any extreme views on any stocks Intel and have appreciated your bearish posts in the past as they have led to me investigating one or two things. Since you asked though, I have the time, and I think there should be more FA discussion in general, why not;

I don’t see any issues with Edison’s long run base case of $125/tonne qualified by specific local market adjustments, nor with the operational cost at $70/t as this arises from Boskalis feed analysis. I don’t agree though with the efficacy of all Edison’s work in respect of local market adjustments.

Generally though, I find both Edison’s research and valuation within cooey of my own work.

CRP has a very consistent and experienced shareholder base, and that is also suggestive that the larger investors are also quite satisfied with their own internal analysis and with the risk/reward position of the venture. Whilst, I’ve been a holder I don’t recall Subsea, Boskalis, Odessey or MIL having ever sold or even rebalanced. Together they hold circa 80% of shares on issue.

Boskalis have been operating for over 100 years, have 1,100 vessels operating in 77 countries, and although they will have some frustrations with regulatory risk and delay, as we all do, I do also take at least some confidence from their consistent 25% holding and their continued support of the venture. It was good to hear recently that they will be providing first hand evidence at the EPA hearing, not something they have to do.

It is the long run price of phosphate over the 15+ year mine life that is important not spot price. Discounted cashflows are estimated from an assessment of the future market and forward earnings. The market will both go up and down during that duration, but at the end of the day dairy farms still require fertiliser, there is increasing global demand for protein, and CRP will have a high end product within the phosphate market.

6008


I'll moot you on a few points you've noted



1) None of the largest investors participated in the most recent rights issue
(take from that what you wish)



2) Boskalis have been continually diluted and own only 18%, which will reduce
further after the AIM listing, have not participated in any fund raising rounds
which must then concern you?



You say the long run price of phosphate is important then you should be running for the hills. Long run commodity prices should be easy to determine as they should equal the
Marginal cost of production (if markets are efficient). The fundamental issue
with this project is its cost structure. For me a US$100 tone price or lower is
perfectly reasonable as lots of projects will still get under way at that
price (theses are new projects, ignoring all of the current operations which have costs much lower than this). The image below is from a 2013 report which details 14m tones of additional
annual capacity. More than enough to provide for forecasted demand increases.
All of these projects bar a couple at the end range from $40 - $80 costs vs
CRPs @ $95.20 (without discounting for P205 content differences). If you looked
at this as a phosphate play from a global perspective you would be stupid to
back it and rightfully so. I’ve not heard one good argument from anyone on how
I am wrong or why my theory wont pan out that way. Most people just say but look how high prices used to be. Another thing to note when you look at phosphate prices is the stranglehold Morocco had historically. They
no longer hold that same power with markets being opened up in Peru, China,
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Australia (the list goes on). All of this significantly
effects rock phosphate prices (negatively) and more importantly, CRP's hinging
claim about shipping spreads they can garner to charge higher prices becomes non
existent and the value is destroyed.

6009

[MAC]

Thanks Intel for you're reply, no I'm not concerned by any of the views you have posted.

[barleeni]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10266030/Moriori-trust-opposes-seabed-mining-plans

[Roberto]

Thanks Intel for you're reply, no I'm not concerned by any of the views you have posted.


I really do hope you're vindicated in your support of this stock MAC, but this sounds like a "head in the sand" post if ever there was one...

Disc: smallish holding.

[MAC]

Not at all Roberto, it takes more than just the opinion of you or me or someone else on the internet to convince a serious investor that the incumbent analysts work is not correct.

I'm neutral on Edison's work as I've validated it as being close to my own humble effort, I'm neither bullish beyond their base case, nor much bearish below it.

If someone, regardless of whether they are an anonymous internet blogger or not, have substantiating research that stands up then I'm first in the cue to give them a pat on the back and to buy them a beer, whether it’s a higher or lower estimate.

As an instance, development companies and/or analysts generally engage very closely with shipping companies when establishing forward freight costs estimates, typically with more than one transporter.

It's entirely fine to propose that an analyst has a freight component wrong provided there is supporting evidence. A shadow report from an alternate shipping company, or an actual shipping receipt from a recent dry bulk import for instance, but an opinion based on an internet search is just an opinion and worth only what it is.

[goldfish]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10266030/Moriori-trust-opposes-seabed-mining-plans
Well thats not great news, i thought the natives where all for this one. You know chance of jobs and environmentally friendly to. The paranoia around mining anything in this country is astounding.

[barleeni]

Well thats not great news, i thought the natives where all for this one. You know chance of jobs and environmentally friendly to. The paranoia around mining anything in this country is astounding.

I sometimes wonder if we wound the clock back, what would happen if we applied todays RMA etc. standards to already established industries? Imagine the application process for 'Dairy Farming' if it were undertaken today...... "Dear/Sir madam I would like to clear fell 100ha of pristine native bush (no idea what the current native wildlife population will do - but im sure they can look after themselves) and whack some farting stock on it, whom will poop into the stream on my property blah blah blah........... this will wash into the local beach and may or may not impact the water quality for swimmers, recreational fishing etc etc....... no problems with that idea? full steam ahead then!

Makes a bit of a mockery I feel sometimes of what startups have go through now?

[Joshuatree]

Risk in the Xtra High danger zone now. Oh, its gone off the chart!

[goldfish]

Yes its kind of sad really, the amount of hoops crp has to go through just to be able to dredge a tiny bit of ocean miles offshore is amazing, i read the application and reply and questions from the epa the other night, you basically need to show every variable in a scientific form no matter how small, from how sound will affect the fish to how doing one pass over a area will affect it compared to doing two passes, the list is endless.
I dont know why anyone would bother with the bar of scientific research for such small environment affect set so high.
Im all for protecting the environment dont get me wrong but this is just ridiculous.

[barleeni]

Agreed goldfish, protecting the environment should always be a high priority, but it needs to be balanced against ensuring a strong economy. Not to worthwhile having beautiful national parks if none of us have jobs to put fuel in our cars to go and see them! Particular merit should be given to ventures that aim to reduce trade deficits too.... would be great to be a little less reliant on imports to keep the country going.

[Intel]

MAC, Thats disheartening and I dont believe you have done nearly enough work to validate your valuation. Another problem that I have with all valuation methodogies is the use of a contracted price out of Morocco that gets updated monthly and is not truly reflective of the wider OTC market.

So I took it upon myself to post some more research I have done.

Vale has a mine in Peru which is exporting around 3.2 - 3.6m tonnes of rock phosphate per annum. The mine is called Bayovar. There annual sale price in the 1st Quater of 2014 (Jan - March) was a paltry USD 58.10 vs an average Morocco benchmark phosphate price of circa 104. That $58 per tonne was at a minimum P205 count of 29.8% as well. Much higher than CRP's 22% and a little lower than morocco 32% and just below global average at 30.5%. Focus have actually bought the rights to mine next to the Bayovar mine (called it Bayovar 12) and have reserves of 60Mt at 29%. Another big project to be weary of.

Shipping time from Morocco to Auckland is approximately 45 days, from Pisco, Peru it is 24. Cost of freight from Morocco is circa USD $50, got this from, stats NZ. Cut that in half and add it to your PEru price (not totally correct to divide like that I'll agree) gives you a landed cost of USD 83 per tonne.

This is just one more example of many I have found that do not validate CRP's economic feasibility at all.

I'm still waiting for you to post how you determine such a high long term phosphate price in your CRP valuation and why you back this comapany so highly? If I am missing something I am eager to know what it is. You preach about the need for more FA discussion yet you do not provide anything to validate your claims or lack thereof.

[ziggy415]

MAC, Thats disheartening and I dont believe you have done nearly enough work to validate your valuation. Another problem that I have with all valuation methodogies is the use of a contracted price out of Morocco that gets updated monthly and is not truly reflective of the wider OTC market.

So I took it upon myself to post some more research I have done.

Vale has a mine in Peru which is exporting around 3.2 - 3.6m tonnes of rock phosphate per annum. The mine is called Bayovar. There annual sale price in the 1st Quater of 2014 (Jan - March) was a paltry USD 58.10 vs an average Morocco benchmark phosphate price of circa 104. That $58 per tonne was at a minimum P205 count of 29.8% as well. Much higher than CRP's 22% and a little lower than morocco 32% and just below global average at 30.5%. Focus have actually bought the rights to mine next to the Bayovar mine (called it Bayovar 12) and have reserves of 60Mt at 29%. Another big project to be weary of.

Shipping time from Morocco to Auckland is approximately 45 days, from Pisco, Peru it is 24. Cost of freight from Morocco is circa USD $50, got this from, stats NZ. Cut that in half and add it to your PEru price (not totally correct to divide like that I'll agree) gives you a landed cost of USD 83 per tonne.

This is just one more example of many I have found that do not validate CRP's economic feasibility at all.

I'm still waiting for you to post how you determine such a high long term phosphate price in your CRP valuation and why you back this comapany so highly? If I am missing something I am eager to know what it is. You preach about the need for more FA discussion yet you do not provide anything to validate your claims or lack thereof.

Nice posting Intel....definetely food for thought...was just trying to decide what to do with aorere share spp....thought it was a good way to get exposure to chattams phosphate but not so sure now......have always been bit sceptical sucking from 400 metres depth

[MAC]

Firstly Intel, it’s not my research that you make a pastime out of attempting to pick holes in, it’s the research of professional analysts and no I neither preach nor take anything personal from this forum.

Secondly, it’s nobody’s job to convince you of anything, if you are bearish that’s fine, and if you disagree with the incumbent analyst that’s fine, then don’t invest, also fine.

Last year along with two other CRP investors we procured a professional market research report, I have always been a bit cautious as to whether one gets value for money out of these things, but I found it thorough. I’m content with the quality of the research and insight it offers from the within sector professionals who prepared it. Admittedly, it was a struggle to read so much about fertilizer.

There are very many forward scenarios for all commodity markets, on both the supply and demand side, and no one credibly ever attempts to accurately project out fifteen years, one has to consider a range of scenarios. However, US$125/t as a base case, fits comfortably within the mid range of the forward analysis and advice offered, and I take a certain degree confidence from Edison as a corroborating secondary source.

It is unlikely that you will convince very many serious investors of anything by scratching around on the internet for bottom of the market examples, we all can and have done that too.

Shipping is also complex, one needs to look specifically at handymax phosphate dry bulk costs and allow for portage and duties and all those good things. It needs to be a forward cost estimate based on cyclical global GDP senarios, there is presently a slight surplus of vessels, a few years ago there was a net shortage.

At the end of the day CRP, Edison, the market research analysts and the major investors could all be right, or, you could be right, ………. time will tell Intel.

[Joshuatree]

RISKS

MANAGEMENT RISK; Gaynor in nz herald" Castle has been associated with number of unsuccessful companies in the past..."

CONSENT RISK: HUGE!!!!! and getting Gynormous

OPERATION RISK; in the Stormy remote oceans sucking up stuff 400 metres down?

VIABILITY HUGE: at the mercy of phosphate prices; a price taker a very weak position (see Intels great post)

ETc ETC .

[ziggy415]

Geez Josh....go easy on Mac..he is definately bullish on chattams but i don,t think he,s trying to ramp the shares and he,s entitled to his opinion just the same as Intel has his....Im not a sophisticated investor so im pleased to see both sides of the story.....if environment permit is obtained share will go up but to make a long term profit ,i,m not so sure

[croesus]

Joshuatree.

Regina etc fell over in the late 80s like many other companies.

[removed by STMOD]