Chatham Rock Phosphate - CRP

[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/I...k_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/morocc...ate_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/I...k_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/morocc...ate_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...0813update.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%)