Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
You don’t know why Sc would be different?
The niobium offtakes are pegged to a market. There is no market pricing for Sc. At a minimum there are almost certainly limits in the deal, if not a flat price.
We are also talking a measly 10%. There are plenty of good arguments to diversify your customer base, but they all fall flat in this case. If the offtake is so good, and Traxys wanted more, why not 25%? Why not 50% like the Nb agreement with ThyssenKrup? As Mark stated many times today, these are binding, enforceable contracts. It is essentially a take or pay contract. Since aerospace is anticipated to be the top immediate industry for Sc, and since Traxys, by contract, is Niocorp’s only avenue to sell into that industry, it makes no sense for Niocorp to turn down a larger agreement unless the terms were not favorable. Which part of the terms do you think were unfavorable?
I was going to submit a question about this and other government involvement, but did not as I didn’t expect to be able to listen to the webinar until a last minute schedule change today.
Did he give any insight as to Nordmin’s work with the Canadian government? I never expected a US government loan, but thought a loan guarantee could be an option. Was there any indication of that?
Based on Sims comments this afternoon, it sounds as if he must have a certain level of security clearance. This would mean he has to walk the lines of both SEC requirements and his clearance requirements, meaning an answer to some of these questions is probably unlikely.
Aerospace is the top current target for the growth of the scandium market.
After thinking about it more, I think the agreed to price in the current offtake must be low. That’s why Traxys wanted more but Niocorp doesn’t want to commit any more than necessary at a low (in the company’s opinion) price. Let Traxys grow the market and then sign a second, larger offtake with them at a higher price. This must be the strategy.
I doubt stockpiling for the DoD had much, if anything, to do with the Traxys deal. It would have been easy enough to carve out an exception in the offtake for a one time government purchase.
The comment starts at about 13:50 in the video if you wanted to hear it again, but after listening a second time I still find it just as odd as when I first heard it.
I agree fully with your other comments, re: pricing and confidentiality.
If it was a simple case of Traxys wanting more but at a lower price, then I don’t know why you’d even mention it. I’ll sign an offtake if the price was low enough.
There was a little bit of doublespeak in that statement. Mark also said he’d like to give them more. This was all in the context of talking about how all of the offtake agreements are enforceable contracts. Traxys is Niocorp’s single path to market in the aerospace field. It does not make sense for Niocorp to put a 10% limit on the offtake. I’ll likely ask Jim to clarify those statements.
I got in just fine using the go webinar app and I was even a few minutes late.
Thanks for the correction.
I suggest following Clean Teq on Facebook if you don’t already. They had a post last night that said “See you tomorrow Forbes,” and details on another community event. Makes me think a Forbes reporter is on site and a news article is pending.
If every skeptic/contrarian took AO’s advice to sell, then the share price would collapse.
I am not even expecting that much of an update. As of now, this is the general meeting only. There have been no indications that there would also be an investor update/webcast like last year.
Previous reports indicate they can produce 99.9% but base this number on a range from 99.0-99.9 as they expect 99.0% to be sufficient for most of the market. Keep in mind this is the mine that previously had a letter of intent with Bloom prior to AUZ purchasing all rights to it.
AUZ down almost 20% last night. I was glad to see they assume the same cobalt price as CLQ and the Ni price is $1 higher. As I expected, they valued Sc at just $1000/kg which is the lowest of any of the major potential producers. Capex is still over a billion with a much smaller resource than CLQ. I will keep AUZ on my watch list as their other two properties are also intriguing, but I think it’s clear that CLQ has to prove to be viable before anything substantial happens at AUZ.
https://australianmines.com.au/brochures/downloads/BFS_supports_strong_commercial_case_for_developing_Sconi1.pdf
I believe the Google data center in Council Bluffs works more or less the same way, although other google data centers use Bloom's energy server.
The key here is what happens with Bloom and how they decide to procure scandium. They once had a letter of intent with the company that formerly owned Australian Mines SCONI project, but it expired years ago.
Niocorp was at least in discussions with them at one time, but if they are still talking this would certainly be a case where an NDA applies.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-glencore-katanga-mng/uranium-levels-force-glencore-unit-katanga-to-halt-cobalt-exports-idUSKCN1NB205
This is huge news for the potential Australian cobalt producers. The Glencore Katanga mine was closed for a considerable amount of time. It came back online this year and was a direct cause of the drop in cobalt prices that coincided with CLQ’s price drop. AUZ and CLQ are both up big in Aussie trading. Uncertainty around this Congo mine may be more beneficial to the share price than an offtake update or other news from Clean Teq themselves.
You must be a mere amateur. You need a Worstall accusation to attain pro status. I sent numerous PM’s to admins but the thinly veiled insults towards Brits still continue. I can’t even mention my experience with mining in Nebraska (even though current mining compares poorly to elk creek) without ridicule.
That doesn’t make sense. Smith said a year ago he expected the first tranche of financing in early 2018. He said construction equipment could be on site last summer. He also said he thought the share price should be $6 a year ago. These statements are far more worthy of scrutiny than a simple quarterly update with actual cash flows or an engineering report stamped by a PE.
It’s these sorts of statements that caused Molycorp issues with the SEC. The difference today is that Smith has learned to keep them out of official PR’s. A factual statement on the companies recent activities does not come anywhere near the other questionable comments that have been made and it is a very simple request from shareholders.
A quarterly letter to shareholders is not subject to an NDA. A cash flow statement and activities report is not subject to an NDA. Nordmin is probably under an NDA, but it is unlikely that Niocorp is under an NDA preventing an update on final engineering. Any other discussions with public officials are definitely not subject to NDA’s.
This company has been lacking on corporate updates for some time now. Formal communication direct from management on a quarterly basis is not asking for much.
Found the update to explain last nights rise. They released the results of the expanded drilling at Sconi:
https://smallcaps.com.au/australian-mines-resource-potential-sconi-cobalt-nickel-scandium-project/
Same as it's felt all along. Feels like an investment in a volatile junior mining stock.
One would think Niocorp would be close enough to CreditSuisse analysts in this sector that those mistakes wouldn’t happen.
http://niocorp.com/index.php/press-releases/215-niocorp-signs-confidentiality-agreements-with-credit-suisse-morgan-stanley
AUZ was up 20% Friday and is up another 10% tonight on what I consider minor news. Seems like both of these must be severely oversold.
No. That’s the same verbiage that has been in at least the last three 10k’s. It’s a warning that this is a risky investment and investors should not expect dividends any time soon, if at all. It has nothing to do with a financing forecast, which should never be put in the report anyways.
Please explain. You can’t lose 450% in equity.
I seem to remember Niocorp, a company that doesn’t compare well to CLQ other than the Scandium play, went from $1.73 to .29. That’s an 83% drop. CLQ has also declined, but not to the same extent at 81%. Such is the life of junior miners that are highly subject to speculation and short term trading. Both were extremely overvalued at their highs. I think CLQ is now undervalued and subject to cobalt pricing in the short term.
Niocorp’s financial justification is fully dependent on scandium. I do not trust their scandium projections. Mark Smith has a history of stretching the truth. I do think their likelihood of government intervention is high.
Welcome to the board! Clean Teq is primarily a junior mining company. Junior miners don’t compare well to telecom companies. I suggest doing your DD now. It makes a lot more sense than simply watching the price action of volatile stocks. I think you’ll find the cobalt play very intriguing, not to mention the institutional investment, including the two billionaires on the board of directors. China is poised to be a world leader in electric vehicles but does not have a significant cobalt supply. Outside of the unstable supply in the Congo, there are few other potential cobalt suppliers as intriguing as Clean Teq.
The last convertible debenture closed in mid April. The company has had over six months to figure out how to account for it. The time span is a secondary concern to the realization that they apparently did not know how to account for it prior to making the offering. This is 100% on management and should be concerning to Niocorp investors as IBC is a significant strategic partner.
EDIT: Correction, the closing was originally scheduled for mid-April but did not occur until May 28th.
Can you share your DD that would suggest this could go to a dime? Are you in USD or AUD? If it were to go to a dime, why do you feel it’s finished? Is it the two billionaire investors on the board? What do you see as the upside to the company that makes you want to invest at $.10? Those seem like contradictory statements.
It did. The quarterly update released last week pushed it into early 2019.
Think a little harder about that. If I start with a dollar and end with nothing, how much did I lose as a percent? This is 3rd or 4th grade arithmetic.
Show me that math. How does a stock drop 450%?
Proceeds to fund early works and long lead items to enable the accelerated development of the Clean TeQ Sunrise Project with the potential to fast track first production by approximately 12 months
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/03/07/1418010/0/en/A-150m-underwritten-placement-to-accelerate-development-of-the-Clean-TeQ-Sunrise-Project.html
It’s still going to take over a billion dollars to get to production. I suggest reading the feasibility study and the annual report as a bare minimum. There’s a lot of information in there to get you started.
I think it was a reference to the share count. There’s some 750 million shares outstanding. It’s an overblown concern and typical of many in the junior mining sector. There is nothing atypical of the actual share structure. Dilution is a fact of life in this sector. The key is how it’s done and to whom. The company raised $150MM at $1.15 per share (both in AUD) in March to institutional investors. Not a bad deal, especially considering today’s price.
What did you post it for? The conversation was on Niocorp's permitting. How is Clean Teq's probability for bankruptcy from a junk site relevant to that topic?
I do think giving Apple a 47% chance of experiencing financial distress is plenty of evidence to call the site garbage.
In respect to Clean Teq, it listed them as an industrial waste company. That's likely due to the water treatment subsidiary, but is another blow to the credibility of your source.
What a dumb site and comparison.
Niocorp had $73,000 on hand and accounts payable of $1.6MM on 8/31. Throw in the private placement and take out the ~$500k burn per month and they are likely back around $500k in net cash today.
Clean Teq had $95MM USD on hand as of 9/30 and likely has about $5MM in revolving liabilities.
That said, neither of these companies are going bankrupt any time soon. If Niocorp doesn't get financed, they close up and sell the rights. MS is the only one that can really force them into bankruptcy via his ~$1.5MM in loans. There are things MS does that I don't agree with, but a move like that is not even a bit realistic.
Clean Teq on the other hand would continue as a going concern with their water business if Sunrise was unable to achieve financing.
This goes out the window if either gets financing and has significant loans. At that point you have to ask yourself about the technical viability of the mines and process and the long term outlooks for the minerals the companies are mining for, along with management's ability to produce as stated, or find suitable replacements when production is commenced.
many of them =/ nearly all.
The section 408 permit won't be officially removed from the requirements until Nordmin's engineering has been accepted by the company. This has not yet happened. This also does not relieve the requirement for "local discharge". That is why all of that verbiage was included in the 10k by management. There is still a lot of water used in the process that must be treated and discharged. It was originally planned to go to the Missouri River with the rest of the water. The current plans for this wastewater are unknown.
The likely elimination of the Missouri river discharge pipe was known prior to 8/31. Everything regarding permitting put in the 10k remains 100% accurate today, at least from an outside perspective.
It is inaccurate and irresponsible to report the remaining required permits as "general housekeeping" permits.
Which ones? Which news release in the last two months have an update on permitting?
I did.
I’m quite aware of NE’s mining. I’ve been to many of them that you’ve listed and others (Platte river area sand mines/dredges). The CO2 issue was news to me. I don’t know if it is true and I can’t remember who posted it without digging through posts. Maybe if they are reading this they can explain it in greater detail. Do remember that this is much deeper than the Ash Grove mine and an entirely different process than the chemical leaching in crow butte.
It’s a direct copy of the management discussion in the 10k from less than two months ago. There’s no need to ask Mark or Jim, those are their words.
The last paragraph is mine. The rest is a direct copy of the 10k from 8/31/18.
Alaska? Montana? Idaho?
As a conservationist, I hope the state does a very thorough study on the potential environmental impacts of the project. You said you were curious what the hold up would be on the permits. Freshwater quality is a serious issue in today’s world, particularly in and around the ogallala. A poster last week brought up the issue of potentially releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere by mining this deposit, I was unaware of that possibility but that may be an issue for the air quality permit.