All reasonable q's! Erratum: I meant MSP not MCS, sorry for my mistake. Re downramping, I did not understand that was the accepted definition. I had implied the inclusion of reasonableness to such activity, as beyond that I saw it as flaming and trolling. There has been a fair bit of that too, in this forum. Not from you, who only ever endeavours to express quality opinions, skewed according to your perspective of the moment. Same for me.
It is my personal assessment that downramping (reasonable negativity) may become available as 'quality mine planning' finds its way into the room. Putting what I understand from various sources, that does appear to be a journey not yet complete. So mis-steps may appear on the horizon as further learnings occur. This observation is based on decades of experience with how even decent, well-intended teams of people don't always find the smoothest pathway straight up. But I don't really know, so it is only experience of life guess-work I can offer. They are still chugging up the hill; smooth running down the other side is still a ways off, to state the bleeding obvious!
Whilst you do know of my vested interests, pumping / demeaning Strandline is of no relevance to me / those. I mean what I say, when I say it, with honesty and integrity, and the potential for human foibles to creep in. Then sometimes I learn 'more stuff'. I freely admit I had zippo understanding of the seriousness of the financing overlaid on the project. I genuinely believed these simple, well understood technical issues were well down the path to resolution. So I stupidly took a big position and am hurting more than many here. Breakeven for me is ~22c, and of course I was only implicitly referring to my situation.
I absolutely do appreciate, with some trepidation, that survival is all well and good, but the financing outcome may leave the sp languishing in the doldrums for even years while those debts are serviced. Whatever happens, the likelihood of a reverse of the trend down is not that flash - it will be a lot slower and there will be some bale-out pain relief to withstand when relisting happens. Permanent or temporary, we get hindsight for that. If they do relist with a really solid strategic plan that is independently verified by the various stakeholders, gets us the best case scenario, whatever that is. It is a massive departure from prior but still might happen. The green shoots are there, and so is the looming cyclone; we get to be tossed around by the winds of joy, or dismay, as it plays out, and we have no opportunity to influence the path. So may as well not beat ourselves up too much about it...
Re the critical ore stuff, yep that was a newsflash for me too as no ann ever hinted at it, nor the earlier Gunson work. Yet anyone that has anything to do with the mine now knows the red sand is hard to process, it needs a leaching plant, so it is overburden, adding to costs. Can't say I've gone back and studied the backfill drilling reports, or that detailed MSP proving work, but rocky outcrops and leach-only iron sands are biggies to have somehow got missed.
I had a 'life experience' with Yemen, back when it was a pretty place and no stupid-everywhere was happening. A large commercial entity had decided they were going to make a motza out of the iron sands there. We put a proper proposal on the table and they seemed very keen to get us to be the ones to supply all the gear to handle it. Everything checked out. But I didn't see where they reliably knew the ore was valuable. So I got samples sent over and run through an Aussie lab, which clearly determined liberating the minerals would cost about what they were worth. No compelling case to pursue and definitely no motza!
Which is why, when I saw STA go through the same detailed process proving tasks and come up with good results, I expected them to be highly reliable. Yet, if there is any glaringly obvious conclusion here for blind Freddy and co, they weren't! Something serious has gone wrong here, but I am not going to try to understand what it was now. Maybe a beer conversation around the right table may give some enlightenment in a couple of years, or so...
I now know, and you have earlier confirmed via satellite pics, that the equipment mooted to be purchased to reduce overburden handling costs does not exist - this is mine planning 101 stuff and I don't know where they are going to be able to go with it, given they are now absolutely capital restrained. That the expected grasshopper conveyors didn't turn up in the commissioning photos, back when everything in the garden was rosy, was an alert for me. Which I assumed meant they were on a later delivery, or not needed initially as they were in a low overburden start-up pit, so the cost could be deferred. Now? Need to get that mine planning right and make the commercials fall into place. Very much the story I was expecting to hear in Perth in a week or so, until the speaker cancelled.
What of Tanzania assets, is salvation coming from that direction? I have no idea, but noted that 'stuff' disappeared out of Base's rhetoric, so STA want to hang on to it if they can, for now anyway. Patience eh, as HC knowledge now may be late to the party, but is the real situation that has been well known for some months by those looking to solve it; hoping they can deliver the goods!
Expand
). The longer things drag without a sale, the more it looks like any offers are so low as not to be worth selling at all. Creditors will be hoping Coburn can turn around enough that it can be on-sold as a going concern down the track, where Tanzanian assets might get a much better value rolled up into a new re=listed entity or whatever?
(20min delay)