More of bldy bldrs repetitive musings,
GFC was 2009, this is 2013 at as copper headed lower. In 2009 we were talking about AS, and 2010 50% Cu hits. We were away. AS oxides was to fast track AN suphides i thought i noticed somewhere.
Keeping in mind NO interest was included in any asx anns for AN (21%) on the investment /facility, there was a tax however. Understanding this is realised in the non cash segment it still impact as a liability(debt, typicall bad debt on a balance sheet i understand it) 12m now being 13+ odd million after cash reciepts of 4+ million production royalties to date.
I guess one question i ask is was there enough in the tank to meet a BOV debt maintenance, considering hedge!
The liability,
View attachment 840368
View attachment 840371
We are looking at just PB above with HB, of which there will be a substantial debt incurred for construction, and who knows how C1/ aisc will match up considering AN numbers and keeping all metrics in context. AN is anticipating a 50% up grade on Au i understand. So overall HB 90m may still fall short in the grand scheme of things, for what was only a jorc compliant resource and reciept of stage 1 licensing.
There is still 10m to go to Glencore i understand and royalty?
Meh, it is all spread out anyway. Like, who cares really.
A question
View attachment 840356
A response
Now, after watching many episodes of
suits,
As all i see is
I. Pre and past tense seperated by a DOT, on one subject being specific. Pre, being a royalty on production on 2 projects. Post being 2 projects producing and future production on current portfolio. Toatl clause satiates total agreement.
IV. NO clarification on current licensed portfolios, however clarification on projects being production, which is the royalty.
V. Other discoveries brought to production on current portfolio, encompassing the mix of I & IV to meet total royalty objective.
View attachment 840320
Anyway, a bit wishy washy.
A sword id like to fall on.
All in my considered opinion.
dyor.
