The date I last posted (17th November), the price of Iron Ore was in a steady decline, from the 27th October ~ 17th November, price had decreased from $US116.80 m/t to $US84.61 m/t for Fe ~ 63.5%
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/iron-ore~ no offence, but replying a week after I posted, is the same as me saying "such a nice day today, it was 20 degrees and sunny" and you replying in a weeks time, NO it isn't, today is 16 degrees and raining ........ yes, I am doing the same by replying days later BUT I still see the price of Iron Ore continue to decline and being in the circa range of $US80 m/t (Fe ~ 62%) for 2022 ~ will this be viable to the Hammersley Project?
The complicated growth of Fe ~ 58% Iron Ore, bearing in mind the analysis is citing "low impurities", Hammersley impurities are somewhat higher >15% combined
SiO210.9% & Al2O35.5% (16.4%) and may incur extra price reductions - as per WFE review and Mine Gate Scoping Study.
https://do not advertise external sites/Article/3402077/ANALYSIS-The-complicated-growth-of-the-58-Fe-iron-ore-market.htmlFurther to the above, taken from Pathfinders response to the ASX query letter:
~ Bulk commodity projects, and in particular, Iron Ore require full mine to port and customer logistic solutions at a cost point that enables the commodity to be saleable. ~ at present,
the Project cannot demonstrate this!~ Whilst the Project is located within range of rail infrastructure owned by third parties (which would acquire access agreements), the Project is in a challenging geographical location. As at settlement, and the date of this Letter, the Company
does not have an economical and technically feasible logistics solution (as demonstrated through independent expert studies and supported by a quality JORC compliance resource statement)
~ The Project would also require the iron ore price to be stable at above US$100/ton benchmark price**
~ At time of PF1 replying, the price deviation for lower grade had "standard" discounting (10%?) which has since increased to 30% as per post
56728504 and all without the inclusion, the price of shipping has in some cases tripled .....
What is interesting, little or none of this was included in the announcement of the Divestment of Hammersley or in Equinox's Prospectus
** Benchmark price is based on Fe ~ 62%
Since the new measures in China were introduced this week, Price for Fe ~ 62% $US97 m/t (
down $US8) and for Fe ~ 58% (IMO, circa the quality EQN
may be able to produce) $US62.50 m/t (
down $US6 m/t)
http://www.custeel.com/en/csi.jspA city government notice (Tangshan, major steel hub) with the new round of measures taking effect from Wednesday (24th November) were announced just days after the mills had emerged from the last round of curbs (Sunday)
https://www.australianmining.com.au/news/iron-ore-teeters-on-100-t-as-chinese-steel-chokes/~
Demand weakness pressures Iron Ore prices:
~ Iron Ore prices dropped sharply on Friday (November 26) amid weak iron ore demand .......
https://do not advertise external sites/Article/4017894/Iron-ore/Demand-weakness-pressures-iron-ore-prices.html
re: "EQN, should have its turnaround very soon IMO"
Curious why you think this will occur?
~ Can't be based on the price of Iron Ore? as you have previously posted that the price would have little bearing to such a tiny MC company but the price of Iron Ore has everything to do with the project being viable!
Since incorporation the company, so far has only increased the Board, KMP and Consultants, ~ IMO they have focussed on jobs for the boys before actually determining if the project is viable!
From the initial board of
- Taylor – Managing Director
- Callaghan – Non-Executive Director
- Habib – Non-Executive Director
- Spindler - Secretary
The company never hit the ground running,@Justadabble but hit the bank balance with the inclusions of:
IPO ~ Baxter - Non-Executive Chairman
IPO ~ Pervez - Chief Financial Officer ~ see post 57627508
Post IPO ~ appointment of CSA Global as Geological Consultants, although an Independent Geologist (Gifford) reviewed the project for the IPO and tabled an extensive list of activities required to move the project to a PFS
Post IPO ~ Appointed Fyfe as the Chief Operating Officer
Post IPO ~ Appointed Wallis as the General Manager of Geology, Heritage and Environment
Estimated (IMO) salary/wages cost of circa $1,080,600k pa ~ and counting (see post 57604271)
~ moved office (not surprised with the size of board/KPM) at an estimated cost of $70k per annum based on rental advertising at that address, plus $695.00 per calendar month if they want a car bay.
It has been 7 weeks since the company listed, still no announcement to any planned drilling but up to date with staff appointments, can't be any titles left ? other than General Manager of transport and car park?
So why hasn't Equinox Resources lived up to the hype surrounding its IPO listing? You know all the statements of ----
~ quote: "EQN will do well on listing,Surprised if we see listing under 50c, Will be supported IMO just like BMM was"
~ (PF1 thread, prior to EQN listing) quote: "Equinox might soon welcome a face whom most here will be familiar with. Yes it is interesting that John Hancock's name has also popped up in the Balkans Minerals project (BMM) which the substantial holders in PF1 have a founding interest in"
IMO
~ all the fanfare, hype, following the money investment thesis and anticipation surrounding the substantial holders in (BMM/PF1/CRR/EMD etc, etc) this was going to be another successful IPO listing based on WHO was participating versus WHAT the actual project is, quite obviously hasn't materialised.
~ Although, the SP opened and peaked @ >50% gains with a High $0.32c, it closed lower than what was anticipated, Closed $0.26c and has declined back to circa IPO prices, with having slight gains for 7 of the trading days since listing and with low volume (excluding 8/11 - 25% gain on previous close) ~ maybe interest is coming back into the sector but at the moment SP/Volume isn't suggesting it is coming to Equinox.
~ Looking at the usual suspects in the Top 20, and most spruiking on the bird ... maybe, just maybe there wasn't the "real" interest in this based on the merits of the project?.
~ Maybe the "eye brow" raising moments some get with the expedited appointments of KMP's, Management, etc has all come before any real activities ie: drilling. What is perplexing, the calibre and experience of the initial board should have been more than capable to progress the project in the interim before expanding the board/KPM's and they said as much in the Prospectus:
Quoting the Prospectus: Section 3 - Investment Overview, Item C - Key Advantages
What are the key advantages of an investment in the Company?
~ paragraph C: "a highly credible and experienced team to progress exploration and accelerate potential development of the Hammersley Iron Ore Project ...(sic)"
~ As above, (my estimates) the Company has committed circa $1,150,600 p/a of the 2 year Corporate Administration budget of $1,950,000 (indicated in the Prospectus) without the inclusion of any other of the usual running administration/Corporate costs.
Interest may come, and I say "may" hesitantly but based on the outlook of Iron Ore, analysts reports, chief economist report, news coming out of China, etc will see some headwinds around for a period of time.
~ "the best indicator of China’s commodity trade suggests that the metal price will consistently trend downwards in the coming months."
https://www.mining.com/the-slump-in-the-best-indicator-of-chinas-commodity-trade-is-all-about-iron-ore/
~ "Iron Ore numbers show how reliant Australia is on China"
~ "Chinese steel production is weakest since Feb 2018"
~ "(sic) .... upper end of forecast range at $78.00"
https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/mining/iron-ore-export-numbers-show-how-reliant-australia-is-on-china/news-story/c98d11c69a36606231a99a5428332184
cheers
(20min delay)