STA (ASX) Ann: Existing Bondholders provide additional A$20M Loan Facility

Originally posted by 2ic: ↑

Thanks and good reply. I was trying to be positive believe it or not lol. There was virtually no detail on the new mine plan released, which I find a bit disturbing considering they have obviously sold it to the creditors etc, which leaves us guessing. Still, that's what HC is for... analysing data released, interpreting commentary, speculating on outcomes and trying to get a feel/probability of where stocks are going. If you wait until it's reality is history, what's the point?

Good pick-up, had 17,300t in open not close for Dec Qtr. Updated for larger (more realistic) mine/port stocks at month end so sales don; change much. Also added in a column of daily HMC tonnes prod'n to make clear just how big improvement mid-Feb onwards was (+50% on Nov, +25% on Dec, +100% on Jan and first half of Feb). Note, actual first 11 day Mar run-rate was 529t/day for over 16kt in March, but I don;t think they will keep up the grade or performance so calling Mar 516t/d avg at best for 16kt fwiw.

I'm spit balling on no mine plan update, trying to be realistic about ramp-up performance and lower average THM grades over the coming months (they were specific higher grades in Feb/Mar were a contributing factor, as they wer in Dec). Others going to see this as a permanent turning point from where it's only upwards and onwards for even higher production, it's just something to consider.

As Gemboy points out, there was an obvious step-change in production late feb, which is why I'm suspicious of how sustainable the jump is and thus a bit conservative on Mar-May 3 months production forecast.

Feb total was 11,308 from 29 days, less 5248 from 7 days = 6060 first 22 days Feb, or 275t/day, almost exactly the same as Jan 31 days at 270t/day average.... that is shizenhousen yeah. They been sitting in the same large East Dune pit for ages, no upper red sand induration or OB, DMU's hardly moving, production was majority tailings constrained. The questions I have are;

If the mid-Feb ramp-up was a last gasp demonstration to creditors that the mine is capable of XXt/mth production if sufficient tailings disposal space is available (and the 6 weeks of plodding leading up to flicking the switch mid-Fed screams planned 'campaign mining'), then how much tailings time have they bought, and/or how sustainable is the tailings disposal at nameplate throughput?

Below satelite images from 9th Mar at top, showing the approved surface TSF in old area in north-west, bung walled above surface to allow the late-feb campaign to kick-off.

Below, 13th Feb where they had not yet started the high-grade, high production campaign... constraind to tailings in pits north of the mining pit
below 14th Jan, virtually identical to one month later but slightly larger mining pit sth-east.

"Thirdly, on the shipments side it appears that we are now exporting as "Bulk Mineral Sands" with the Geraldtion port site showing an export of 10,167T of Bulk Mineral sands on March 4 another scheduled shipment of 22,000T on March 31."... another good pick by Gemboy, so I maxed out Mar shipments to 30,000 on my assumptions, which is every tonne of stocks on the ship 31st March, so 32kt shipped in March would be tops.

So is 16kt/mth the new normal or is that an unsustainable combination of higher grades, temporary surface tailings storage facilities etc? As a reminder, the current sth-east mining pit was underway by August 2023... so that's how long it's taken to dig the pit seen in top image, but I wonder how many months of full production that pit would provide when they move south to the next pit? Probably not 6 months worth of mine tailings storage...

"Lastly with respect to the recapitalisation which will happen under a survival case scenario we can only hope that Tembo Capital and United Super as our major shareholders will only support a reasonsable dealwhen it happens."... it all comes down to who will 'underwrite' a CR at the highest price. Tembo and other top 20, different brokers, another cornerstone investor. Whatever price they best underwriter is prepared to offer the board gets the lead and sets the price. Given the damage done and permanent downgrade of Coburn value due to ore quality, water mounding, production and processing constraints, it is now a higher cost, low margin, potentially low quality product producer at the wrong end of the cost curve. High debt is high risk, Tanzania probably sold for a song... what price will new investors be prepared to step up?

It makes sense that Tembo and other top 20 are more motivated to underwrite a rights issue at the best price to avoid being wiped out by brokers. However, they are also motivated not to through good money after bad without 'averaging down' at the very lowest price they can, which is also going to be very cheap imo. Coburn is flawed, would never have been built if these problems/realities were well communicated, and only the sunk investment makes it potentially worth keeping in production with whatever value write down is required. How much money is required for the recap... $40M, $80M, $20m... depends on Tanzania and what other capex and working cap required and debt catch-up or restructure the creditors are happy to accept?

This huge lift in production is most welcome on the vinegar stroke of administration, but it's way too early to pop the champaign and start talking small CR at small discount to re-float the boat imho. Hope I'm wrong, still got too much tied up in this dog.

GLTAH

Expand

I might have misinterpreted your comments, but it looks to me that you might have assumed an "all in" Strandline re-cap. That is, that STA has to get any price available from the Tanzanian assets, tip it into the pot, and see what further equity is required to put Coburn back on an even keel.

That would be an incorrect analysis from STA shareholders' perspective, in my view.

The NAIF Facility, bonds, and WC facility are all secured only against the Coburn assets.

The Tanzanian assets are to my knowledge unencumbered. Fwiw, brokers last estimated that the Tanzanian assets might be worth 10-18 cents per share, following the $15 million (?) surprising payment. They were already highly discounted, risk assessed values, but make of that what you will.

I addition, 2ic, you suggest, and I agree, that no matter if and how much under (capitalised debt) water the Coburn project might be, there is likely some 'seat at the table' modest value in any recap for existing STA shareholders, including for facilitating an orderly management process, and perhaps preservation of Coburn tax losses etc.

Naturally, if management can throw a hail mary in March/April and even get MSP to work, there may be a remote chance of more meaningful Coburn value for existing shareholders. It would certainly seem to me now that as an operating asset, Coburn will be around for quite a while.

So I certainly don't see merit in a fire sale of Tanzania, though would be happy to crystallize its full value. What, if anything, I did with that value would resemble a game of poker!

As existing stakeholders to whom management owe their primary duty, I remind management that we deserve a much more fulsome disclosure of the situation, even if they choose to keep STA suspended.