Having said that, it appears just under $8k has changed hands at this point.
Printable View
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
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.
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
https://www.greens.org.nz/submission...e-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.
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.
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 !!!!
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.
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.
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
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/...missions-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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
from the CRP Environmental Impact Assessment.
[my emphasis]Quote:
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.
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
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/...missions-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.
Bad mouthing KASM is bad form - must be getting a bit worried
Whilst a better reply than at least one of your responses to an opposing view:
It is not actually very good is it?Quote:
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
As you currently do not know how many, there is no clearly very few.
There is? What is it?
Overwhelming are they? That is yet to be established.
They are bound to say that aren't they!
and even if so - immaterial to the discussion.
At last you actually quote something factual and that I can agree with.
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
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 .
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
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Attachment 6007
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.
Attachment 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.
Attachment 6009
Thanks Intel for you're reply, no I'm not concerned by any of the views you have posted.
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.
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?
Risk in the Xtra High danger zone now. Oh, its gone off the chart!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
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
Joshuatree.
Regina etc fell over in the late 80s like many other companies.
[removed by STMOD]
Moosie... whats with the cryptic crossword... keep away from the datura.
Thank goodness, we got our land cleared, Railway Lines Built, Roads, Ports etc... back 100 plus years ago...
Interesting article on stuff.co.nz this morning...the fishing industry seem to be at war with CRP.
I would have thought that Uranium would be a bonus. Kind of like finding diamonds in your Gold mine.
Smith's final comment in that article will hardly inspire confidence in the CRP camp.
Talk about hippocrites, the fishing industry have been raping the ocean and sea bed for years, a single bottom trawler would do hundreds time more damage then this ever would. Hopefully the epa will see them for the hippocrites they are.
http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/r...ty-to-fish.cfm
Based on above and given the dust clouds raised by bottom trawling fishing gear, looks like the fishing industries “Deep water” group have just given the Greenies a very good argument for banning bottom trawling on the Chatham Rise.
You can read all of the submissions now on the eap website, boy are they wide and varied. Check out Allen_T_110195 a "fiction writer". In all sersiousness though, I was hoping to see a submission from Ballance or Ravensdown as they will likely be NZ's customers, but does not look like they submitted. There seems to be a lot of lobby groups against CRP and those that are for it / neutral are wanting to see a lot more conditions and / or scientific evidence to validate the claims made by CRp. ( I have only looked at a few submisisons, so selection bias is ever present in that comment)
Does anyone know if they are unfortunate enough to be declined, they can go back, get more data etc and reapply?
7 days out from the AIM listing. What can we expect it does to the nzx price? What's the appetite for risky mining stocks in London like?
That would be hilarious. She is a journalist i believe and is also paid as a director and consultant to both companies like CC.
So what is the problem with her articles in the Listener ?
Your happy to snipe behind a non de plume.
How about letting us know what you have achievied....
Hey croesus ;i think its funny , ironical, if she has a green slant .One of the bigger risks with CRP is the environmental concerns. Im not aware of reading any of her articles but am sure i have.
Edited duplicate
How can you not be aware ? if your sure you have ? ( your words ) ( suggest you see your G.P and change your medication )
Re CRP and environmental concerns , every day dozens of deep sea trawlers, drag their weighted nets over the sea floor causing untold damage and sand disturbance plumes.... what a pack of hypocrites to argue against CRP ..
bearing in mind they cover and wreck more sea bed in a year, then CRP would gently with hardly any disturbance visit in a 100 years
We've both been moderated croesus. Ive learnt my lesson ,please calm down.
Your risk /reward meter is very different to mine. I read the listener occasionally for the great articles.Have no memory of who the authors are.
Correct me if I'm wrong but is this the first seabed mining in NZ waters or have some iron sands being mined already? They will and have to be extremely thorough in assessing this longterm project so the bar will be set very high environmentally and culturally . Too risky to put my funds in. Ive covered management and Admin costs; have you had a good look?
Exactly Winner69.
Plus we don't need to freight it from Morocco, which is about as far from N.Z as it gets.
Plus what happens if Morroco ends up like Syria, Libya, Egypt, Gaza etc... and we cant get it any way ?
BTW.. far more damage is done every day by deep sea trawlers then CRP could do in 100 years.
Its just that trawling is a existing use right... they ( the Fishing body ) are almost as much a hypocrite as Laila Harre ( quiet shudder )
I’ve been following that one too Percy, pre-feasibility is due in August now, the JORC is high volume but quite low grade product and it will incur re-processing costs, quite remote from the northern ports also.
Compared with Moroccan product which is higher grade 32% and mined close to port, RUM will be looking to compete on transport margins with lower grade lower value product 14 to 18%.
Overland to Darwin then shipping to Asia/NSW/VIC, versus Moroccan product circa $65/t shipped to this part of the world. It will all be in the numbers, but I'm not sure the margins will really be there.
RUM presentation to Morgans Mining Conference 17th July was positive.
Sounds like RUM deal to me !
Another article this morning from stuff.co.nz....it would appear that the EPA is concerned about levels of Uranium and has asked CRP to get back to them about this....it will be interesting to see what Chris Castle comes up with...the EPA could well grant CRP a permit...but it is not going to be easy...
It’s more about George Clements ego and messing with the media, all fertilizers have trace elements.
This from ‘The Crown’ submission to the EPA;
“Information received from the fertiliser industry indicates that current superphosphate produced in New Zealand has a uranium content of around 60 ppm on average, while some imported triple superphosphate has concentrations of around 200 ppm (Warwick Catto, Ballance Agi-Nutrients, private communication).”
The EPA are probably interested in what "around" means, could be 150, could be 250. I checked through several Ravensdown and Ballance specs this morning, no mention of Uranium whatsoever. One would imagine though that the EPA would be interested to know what the ranges of products in the market are, as would we all. The CRP product will have on average 156 to 181ppm Uranium.
I don’t see that EPA could exclude CRP on trace elements alone if there are multiple very similar products, or products with higher levels, that have been entrenched in the market place for a very long time.
And, Cadmium does seem to be a bigger issue on NZ farms than Uranium.
Well i sold out today, for a 13% profit in a week or so not to bad especially for such a illiquid stock.
In fact i think only a couple of other trades have passed in that time.
I didnt want to when i bought but after reading how high the bar has been set for anyone attempting to go through the epa process, i just cant see crp getting there. Add to that the iwi and chatam natives opposing it after i was lead to believe that they where in support.
I really hope they do but the irrational hysteria around mining in this country leads me to think it will be impossible to do any sort of underwater mining no matter how small the footprint or how good it improves the environment or economy.
I really hope im wrong and the epa approves this but its to risk high for me now.
One thing that really disappointed me was the fishing industry opposing it so much, having worked on bottom trawlers and done river dredging for gold as a hobby the damage one tow can do ripping up stretches of reef yet a dead area of sand and they oppose it, ridiculous. If boats had to go through the same process crp has to now there is no way they would be allowed to do any bottom trawling, bunch of hippocrites.
Rant over. Gluck crp.
I agree with you on you're bottom trawling comments.
someone please correct me if I'm wrong, however I thought the reason the fishing industry is up in arms is due to the location of CRP's mining site.
It is located in a benthic protection area (BPA) (or at least part of it overlaps) one of 17 BPA's set up by the fishing association back in 2007 to ensure sustainable fish stocks etc. I read that the BPA's are NOT bottom trawled and the fishing industry was inpart responsible for self regulation of their own industry (something not commonly done). It's only due to the BPA that makes CRP's application even more difficult compared to TTR's who wasnt in a BPA...
That is the way I read about BPA's (although arguably a while ago).
I hope to stand corrected and get a better understanding. It should be noted that in Namibia a project did not go ahead due to concerns bought forward by the fishing industry (similar project, sucking up phosphate from around 250m)..
Also,
Another note, CRP was supposed to List on AIM tonight but the date has now changed to the 8th of August... (did anyone go to the AGM and listen to what CC said about AIM?) CRP have been pitching this for a while now with Wimmer in charge and thought they would have wrapped it up.
Quite high vol for Crp going through today..looks like interest is building
Provided one anticipates a successful marine consent, it may be we are seeing a last opportunity for local investors to get some reasonable volumes at these levels.
The book build has a NZ$0.25 floor, and the raising price may well be higher, could be a lot higher, and will probably set the SP ahead of the announcement in November (or sooner).
Aside from what will be offered in the UK no further capital raising should be required through to profitable operation.
Another buyer has stepped in at 23c with a big order...looks like someone is taking a position in this stock
Just because you are a newby.. :) its $36.8 million give or take a few cents. It's easy enough to find out if you want by going to the ANZ securities website:
http://www.anzsecurities.co.nz/direc...uickQuote=+Go+
If you look for a stock quote and go to the "detailed" section you will find it there.
Or you can go to the NZX website click on Markets click on NZAM click on click on All securities and you got it. NZX charts also have 50 and 200DMA etc.
https://nzx.com/companies/CRP/announcements/253466
"Chatham Rock Phopshate (CRP or the Company) announces that it has advised the Environmental Protection Authority that it will remove the eastern end of application area covered by prospecting permit 55967, comprising 4,985 km2 and representing about half the total, so the area for which marine consent is being applied now totals 5,207 km2.
“Reducing the size of the Company’s application area will have no impact on CRP’s mining plans for the first 15 years, which is covered by its approved mining permit and is subject only to a marine consent,” Managing Director Chris Castle said. "
Quite a clever move I would say, improves chances of a positive ruling at no short-term cost, and presumably if the plan is successful the process for getting at the secondary portion will be easier.
Actually, I thought this was a quite clever move from CRP. They basically removed the complete zone protected by the fishing industry from their application, which has initially (for the first 15 years) absolutely no impact on them. After that time there will be real data what (if any) impact the mining has on the seabed, so people can talk based on data than based on hype, as they do now. If we assume the impact is minor, than it will be much easier at that stage to get a permit to mine the rest. If unexpectedly the impact is larger, than no harm done to the fishing protected areas and CRP might have found alternatives (or at least made money for 15 years). Win-win.
I think so too, a bit of give and take is required in a negotiated process, the ‘take’ doesn't need to impact CRP financially or the economic benefits negatively.
There may or may not be a stigma around a revisit of the eastern benthic claim, but if the first marine consent is successful there should be no reason why a future second shouldn’t also be successful on the same environmental basis.
Good to see the CRP team working with the EPA so closely, rather than fighting them like Trans Tasman, and one would hope too that the effort made in answering every pedantic little question will satisfy the DMC and leave them with a positive disposition.