sharetrader
Page 307 of 929 FirstFirst ... 207257297303304305306307308309310311317357407807 ... LastLast
Results 3,061 to 3,070 of 9281
  1. #3061
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    266

    Default

    In which case a nice offer to ma n pa prior to offer from interested party makes perfect sense no? only fair to offer it up before the big boys open their wallets to take up the gap.

  2. #3062
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    446

    Default

    Well this is certainly something to ponder while I lie awake in bed, with a big fat red arrow getting longer.

    Buy more at this reduced price getting an extra 150k shares more than the SPP. OR wait till next week see where this settles at buy some then. OR just sit it out, hope Jacinda has a skeleton in the closet(paid for dental work with public funds) and hope she'll come right.

  3. #3063
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    173

    Default

    What a joe of a bulletin board this is with one thread for each company but when was the last assessment of the company's value done?
    First of all, NTL has a mining permit. Second their resource consent is only for 3 years (from date of issue) and it only allows them them to mine 20,000 m3 of material p.a. using a single explosive blast per day. Even with the high grade ore that has been encountered that limits their ability to produce gold. This will limit the company to gaining revenue of $11M or so p.a. until they can obtain permission for "full" mining.

    The company has not given any figure for the All In Sustaining Cost (AISC) of mining the currently proven resources using this "bulk sampling" consent and so earnings are still a bit up in the air.

    For the company to fly, it has to obtain new consents to increase the level of mining. That is where the election becomes an issue. If Labour/Green get in (as looks increasingly likely) who have already said (both Greens and Labour spokespersons) that they will place the Karangahake Conservation Area under section 4 of the Mining Act which restricts mining. That will mean the Minister of Conservation needs to give NTL an exemption for any new access to mine outside of the existing mining permit, as would be required for the Rahu prospect and possibly for the full development of the Talisman mine. Not impossible but much more difficult with a Green coalition and who knows who the Conservation Minister will be.
    Beyond that, a new resource consent is required to go beyond the current bulk sampling. This is issued by the Waikato Regional Authority for water treatment and the Hauraki District Council otherwise. The normal public consultation process will be required. This is the really difficult bit in my mind because all the environmental impacts are taken into account. The much larger amount of tailings will need to handled in the Conservation Area or removed somewhere else in an acceptable manner. Plus the activity of crushing ore, treating it for concentration and then refinement has to be approved. Perhaps this can be done outside the Conservation Area and I note that the Waihi Mine already does the full process. Historically, there was a strong flow of water at the lower levels of the mine that needed to be pumped out and discharged. The company has not given any assessment of this to date. The water will not be alowed to be pumped straight into a stream/river but will need to be treated before discharge. A permit for minimal extraction and treatment of ore is one thing but a full-scale process is something else.

    No doubt the company has been lending its mind on how to succeed with the above but we have no public info and a change of Government will change the situation.

    The gold is there but when can it be extracted at substantial levels? On that question you have to decide what the present day value of the company is worth to you as a shareholder.
    Last edited by SilverBack; 07-09-2017 at 11:33 PM.

  4. #3064
    Guru
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverBack View Post
    What a joe of a bulletin board this is with one thread for each company but when was the last assessment of the company's value done?
    First of all, NTL has a mining permit. Second their resource consent is only for 3 years (from date of issue) and it only allows them them to mine 20,000 m3 of material p.a. using a single explosive blast per day. Even with the high grade ore that has been encountered that limits their ability to produce gold. This will limit the company to gaining revenue of $11M or so p.a. until they can obtain permission for "full" mining.

    The company has not given any figure for the All In Sustaining Cost (AISC) of mining the currently proven resources using this "bulk sampling" consent and so earnings are still a bit up in the air.

    For the company to fly, it has to obtain new consents to increase the level of mining. That is where the election becomes an issue. If Labour/Green get in (as looks increasingly likely) who have already said (both Greens and Labour spokespersons) that they will place the Karangahake Conservation Area under section 4 of the Mining Act which restricts mining. That will mean the Minister of Conservation needs to give NTL an exemption for any new access to mine outside of the existing mining permit, as would be required for the Rahu prospect and possibly for the full development of the Talisman mine. Not impossible but much more difficult with a Green coalition and who knows who the Conservation Minister will be.
    Beyond that, a new resource consent is required to go beyond the current bulk sampling. This is issued by the Waikato Regional Authority for water treatment and the Hauraki District Council otherwise. The normal public consultation process will be required. This is the really difficult bit in my mind because all the environmental impacts are taken into account. The much larger amount of tailings will need to handled in the Conservation Area or removed somewhere else in an acceptable manner. Plus the activity of crushing ore, treating it for concentration and then refinement has to be approved. Perhaps this can be done outside the Conservation Area and I note that the Waihi Mine already does the full process. Historically, there was a strong flow of water at the lower levels of the mine that needed to be pumped out and discharged. The company has not given any assessment of this to date. The water will not be alowed to be pumped straight into a stream/river but will need to be treated before discharge. A permit for minimal extraction and treatment of ore is one thing but a full-scale process is something else.

    No doubt the company has been lending its mind on how to succeed with the above but we have no public info and a change of Government will change the situation.

    The gold is there but when can it be extracted at substantial levels? On that question you have to decide what the present day value of the company is worth to you as a shareholder.
    Interesting points Silverback, however many of them are a little off the mark.

    The company has a 25 year mining permit. The 20,000 m3 aspect of the bulk sampling resource consent is partly why they want the ore concentrator. Beyond this, yes they do need to apply for a RC to fully mine. This would be hard to decline as the issues have already been to Appeal and thrown out for the first consent.

    The company is updating the ASIC as part of the updated feasibility study due by the end of the year. Earlier indications have been around $800 an ounce NZD. There have been movements in the exchange rate and gold price since then with a significantly higher profit margin at current prices.

    Schedule 4 may be an issue if they are looking to access through entirely new areas. With Rahu that would be a JV problem with Newmont, although I'm not sure that even involves accessing through Conservation Land. Would be a good question for the AGM.

    I don't know how you calculated the 11 million figure. But if you take the ore concentrator into account, Matt Hill is saying 100,000 tonne of ore can be extracted under the current consent. Without allowing for silver and allowing for 17g/t I come up with a rough profit of 59 million per year, going on the $800 an ounce cost figure. Even if you halved the g/t the figure is still very good.

    I'm not a miner, but it would appear the gear they want to use won't rely on blasting. Again another question that might be asked at the AGM.

    I have always tried to value the company on the JORC. Once the SPP (and possible subsequent shortfall placement) is out of the way, true value will emerge.

  5. #3065
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Wellington
    Posts
    446

    Default

    Silverback and Jonu both informative posts thanks for taking the time to post them. We need info from both sides and its clear where you guys stand. Me, I'm in the middle. At this moment I, like many others here, am disappointed in the direction this has gone. I'll take the short term goggles off and wear the long term cap. Wait this out.

    Who's staying on the bumpy bus ride and who's jumping from this moving vehicle steered by Matthew Hill?

    And it doesn't help with stories like this on google alerts - Is New Talisman Gold Mines Limited (NZSE:NTL) Overpaying Its CEO? - Matthew Hill took the reins as New Talisman Gold Mines Limited’s (NZSE:NTL) CEO and earned a total compensation of $356,000 over the past year. We’re going to find out whether Hill’s stock-based compensation is in-line with the salaries of CEO-peers in globally recognized companies. In 2015, 60% of total compensation for S&P500 CEOs were stock-based compensation. Although NTL is a small-cap company operating in New Zealand, and may not be directly comparable to their larger counterparts, this analysis is still useful in terms of helping us understand how the company’s CEO is incentivised, and the level of alignment with shareholders.

    Full story here https://simplywall.st/news/2017/09/0...aying-its-ceo/

  6. #3066
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverBack View Post
    What a joe of a bulletin board this is with one thread for each company but when was the last assessment of the company's value done?
    First of all, NTL has a mining permit. Second their resource consent is only for 3 years (from date of issue) and it only allows them them to mine 20,000 m3 of material p.a. using a single explosive blast per day. Even with the high grade ore that has been encountered that limits their ability to produce gold. This will limit the company to gaining revenue of $11M or so p.a. until they can obtain permission for "full" mining.

    The company has not given any figure for the All In Sustaining Cost (AISC) of mining the currently proven resources using this "bulk sampling" consent and so earnings are still a bit up in the air.

    For the company to fly, it has to obtain new consents to increase the level of mining. That is where the election becomes an issue. If Labour/Green get in (as looks increasingly likely) who have already said (both Greens and Labour spokespersons) that they will place the Karangahake Conservation Area under section 4 of the Mining Act which restricts mining. That will mean the Minister of Conservation needs to give NTL an exemption for any new access to mine outside of the existing mining permit, as would be required for the Rahu prospect and possibly for the full development of the Talisman mine. Not impossible but much more difficult with a Green coalition and who knows who the Conservation Minister will be.
    Beyond that, a new resource consent is required to go beyond the current bulk sampling. This is issued by the Waikato Regional Authority for water treatment and the Hauraki District Council otherwise. The normal public consultation process will be required. This is the really difficult bit in my mind because all the environmental impacts are taken into account. The much larger amount of tailings will need to handled in the Conservation Area or removed somewhere else in an acceptable manner. Plus the activity of crushing ore, treating it for concentration and then refinement has to be approved. Perhaps this can be done outside the Conservation Area and I note that the Waihi Mine already does the full process. Historically, there was a strong flow of water at the lower levels of the mine that needed to be pumped out and discharged. The company has not given any assessment of this to date. The water will not be alowed to be pumped straight into a stream/river but will need to be treated before discharge. A permit for minimal extraction and treatment of ore is one thing but a full-scale process is something else.

    No doubt the company has been lending its mind on how to succeed with the above but we have no public info and a change of Government will change the situation.

    The gold is there but when can it be extracted at substantial levels? On that question you have to decide what the present day value of the company is worth to you as a shareholder.
    Hi SilverBack, interesting points you raise about the consents required for water treatment and discharge.

    The history of the Talisman which can be read here, especially the DRAINAGE section:
    http://www.ohinemuri.org.nz/journals...ne-karangahake

    says the mine floods below Level 12 (river level) at a rate of "25,000 to 30,000 gallons per hour" when the nearby Crown mine's pumps were working, so the without Crown's pumps running the current figure is probably higher than that.

    Does it require a consent to actually pump the water out? I'm guessing a separate consent is required to TAKE the water, as well as to later DISCHARGE it?

  7. #3067
    Guru
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Seeker View Post
    Hi SilverBack, interesting points you raise about the consents required for water treatment and discharge.

    The history of the Talisman which can be read here, especially the DRAINAGE section:
    http://www.ohinemuri.org.nz/journals...ne-karangahake

    says the mine floods below Level 12 (river level) at a rate of "25,000 to 30,000 gallons per hour" when the nearby Crown mine's pumps were working, so the without Crown's pumps running the current figure is probably higher than that.

    Does it require a consent to actually pump the water out? I'm guessing a separate consent is required to TAKE the water, as well as to later DISCHARGE it?
    If you think water is an issue Seeker, you are best to raise it with the company. No one here will be able to give you an accurate assessment. It hasn't been raised as an issue by the company.

  8. #3068
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatboyj View Post
    Silverback and Jonu both informative posts thanks for taking the time to post them. We need info from both sides and its clear where you guys stand. Me, I'm in the middle. At this moment I, like many others here, am disappointed in the direction this has gone. I'll take the short term goggles off and wear the long term cap. Wait this out.

    Who's staying on the bumpy bus ride and who's jumping from this moving vehicle steered by Matthew Hill?

    And it doesn't help with stories like this on google alerts - Is New Talisman Gold Mines Limited (NZSE:NTL) Overpaying Its CEO? - Matthew Hill took the reins as New Talisman Gold Mines Limited’s (NZSE:NTL) CEO and earned a total compensation of $356,000 over the past year. We’re going to find out whether Hill’s stock-based compensation is in-line with the salaries of CEO-peers in globally recognized companies. In 2015, 60% of total compensation for S&P500 CEOs were stock-based compensation. Although NTL is a small-cap company operating in New Zealand, and may not be directly comparable to their larger counterparts, this analysis is still useful in terms of helping us understand how the company’s CEO is incentivised, and the level of alignment with shareholders.

    Full story here https://simplywall.st/news/2017/09/0...aying-its-ceo/
    This looks like a generated report and is useful only as digital TP

  9. #3069
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jonu View Post
    If you think water is an issue Seeker, you are best to raise it with the company. No one here will be able to give you an accurate assessment. It hasn't been raised as an issue by the company.
    Hi jonu, yes excellent question for the upcoming AGM, "Is it true the Talisman mine is flooded below Level12?

    If so what are the company's plans to deal with this, especially as in the recent 5th Sept 2017 Bonanza announcement it identified the lower reaches of the zone below 14 Level as a Global Exploration Target likely to yield a vein width of between 1.6m and 2.4m with mean AuEq grades ranging between 17.10g/t and 21.6g/t, for between 300,000 and 600,000 contained ounces?"

  10. #3070
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    266

    Default

    Question 2: does ntl plan to sell any of the remaining share offer to newmont, oceana, Amer or any other party.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •