Well, where does onestart?
The 12/19 $7.4m Net Assetsinclude $1.7m of HPA Exploration & Evaluation and $4.8m of Explorationcosts for the gold properties (unchanged since June 2019) and I we are led tobelieve there has been no reason to diminish the book value of the (unsaleable)gold assets in the intervening 6 months? I wonder how much – if any - of the $1.7m HPA exploration costs will be realisable? And the $4.8m for that matter.
At June 2019 there was$30k security held over three HPA ELs and $606k Performance Bonds attributableto the gold tenements. These appear to be unchanged @ 31-12-19. Presumably the $30k will be released now that the tenements have been surrendered – assuming, of course, that no remediation work will be required at Yendon.
Offsetting the $606k PerformanceBonds is a $290k Site Rehabilitation liability so, presumably, there may be$316k cash available if/when the gold tenements are released (andrehabilitated) – but when ????
And so the December 2019Cash + Receivables of $593k is available to meet the $213k CurrentLiabilities suggesting a liquid surplus at 31-12-19 of $380k; the December 5B report to the ASX anticipated 1Q2020 expenditure of $384k – except, of course, some of that $384k would be to meet the $167k December 2019 A/Payable. With 6me 12/19 Administration costs of $836k one could assume the March Quarter’s would be ~$418k. Hmmmm, somehow I get the impression there may be a cash crunch at the end of this month, March. The 31/3/2020 A/Payable balance will be interesting.
In 11th May2018 Mr McFarlane announced that “Hill End had appointed PCF Capitalto conduct a strategic review of its gold assets” and with *****’s then reported gold price was USD1325/oz and the USD:AUD FX rate was 1:1.3251 meaninggold was selling at AUD1755/oz. At 31-12-19 ***** reported that gold was selling at AUD2160 (USD1517 x 1.4243). 2160 / 1755 = + 23%, not the 30% in today’s announcement. Yeah, only 7% or $123. But why not be accurate?
Next, I read that theBoard will “contemplate” updating historic economic studies. For goodness sakes, the AUD1600 contained in the previous studies can at least be updated to $2000 (a +25% increase) butthe relevant costs must also be updated. The Hargraves study was in 2010 and the CPI has increased by ~20% since then so just how viable is Hargraves today?
All in all, it's hard to not say that HEG, now PUA, is a basket case.
The “old” resources for the HillEnd resources totalled 3grammes per tonne. Less than /10th ounce per tonne, and this is seen as viable ?????
