Conservative figures for the Namibian Project.
$70 OPEX (Mak quotes $57)
Mak owns 50% of the total partnership through stake in UCL.
Price of RP drops to $100 for the long term ( lower than most fertilizer analysts)
Cash (144m) is raised only by MAK for the whole project and UCL's stake does not change (a complete fantasy).
MAK spends $144 mil to get $30 per tonne and only 3MT are produced each year compared with 5MT.
This turns out to be a profit of $45 mil US (at parity conversion) is $45 mil Aus per year. Which leads to repayment of the total 144m (which in this back of the envelope analysis UCL has not contributed to) in 3 Years.
If MAK only looks after its own CAP raising, this is paid back in 1.5 years, excluding the cash held aside to pay for the Tungeni investment Corp which earns profits after its CAPEX share is repaid (sort of like a free ride initially for the Namibians).
Why isn't this project the most optimal way to spend MAK's money???
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
