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.
We are making progress with Mr. CP .
Previous post:
''positive ''boys can't answer tough questions
Last post
" have an answer for everything"
In order to have a fact based discussion about Petaquilla may I request that "anyone who happens to check the record" is a 2 way street.
Concerning dilution "except for the burgeoning sharefloat" I think I covered the increase in the share count of Petaquilla extensively. I am expecting a fact for fact discussion on that subject. That's what make a discussion Board interesting. My position on dilution is that if the assets value grows at a multiple of the share count then it is not dilution.
So, I will ask anyone to take any of my posts where I publish numbers about Petaquilla and tell me where my numbers are wrong. I can always be corrected because it would not be the first time I made a mistake.
150k (again) and financing
The reference to 150K keeps coming and I still ask for the PR where the company committed to produce 150K this year
Now I would like to address the company transparency on financing.
"There has not been one specific reference to financing
That statement is correct only as far as Red Kite is concerned. The company discusses financing every quarter in they financial report. I expect them to cover the long term financing in their year end report.
Maybe it requires a bit of reading but here is the financial discussion from last quarter's financial report and yes it counts as communication to stockholders:
Subsequent to the nine months ended February 28, 2013:
a) 190,500 common shares were repurchased by the Company, at share prices ranging from CAD$0.48 to CAD$0.485.
b) A total of 100,000 stock options were exercised.
c) On April 11, 2013, a new credit line facility was approved by Metrobank, S.A. for Petaquilla Gold, S.A. in the amount of $3 million, repayable over 180 days at an annual interest rate of 7.50%. The proceeds of this facility will be used for working capital applications.
During the year ended May 31, 2011, the Company arranged with Global Bank of Panama, a bank loan financing of $2.3 million for the payment of advances to suppliers of heavy equipment for its subsidiary Panama Desarrollo de Infraestructuras, S.A. (“PDI S.A.”). Total principal and interest payments on this loan for the nine months ended February 28, 2013 amount to $0.3 million and $0.07 million, respectively (year ended May 31, 2012 $0.4 million and $0.1 million, respectively).This facility accrues interest at 6% per annum and is collateralized by a $2.3 million cash term deposit that earns interest at 5% per annum, and has an expiration date longer than one year to secure this arrangement. As of February 28, 2013, the outstanding obligation relating to this facility is $1.5 million (May 31, 2012- $1.8 million). The balance forms part of the liabilitiesof disposal group (Note 6).
On September 1, 2011 Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria (Panama) S.A. ("BBVA") approved a Credit Line Facility in the amount of $6.9 million. This facility was used for the acquisition of heavy equipment by the Company’s subsidiary, Petaquilla Gold S.A. in connection with the expansion of the production capacity at its Molejon Gold Mine. This credit facility accrues interest at the LIBOR rate plus a spread of 3.75%, with a minimum of 6.50%. The equipmentservesascollateralthroughoutthetermofthefacility(fouryears)andisregisteredwiththePublic Registry of the Republic of Panama. As of February 28, 2013, the entire amount of the facility has been drawn upon (May 31, 2012- $2.3 million) with an outstanding balance of $6.8 million (May 31, 2012 - $2.3 million).
During the year ended May 31, 2012, the Company through its subsidiary Petaquilla Gold S.A., entered into a working capital credit facility with Lafise Bank of Panama for an amount up to $2 million. This credit facility accrues interest of 7.75% per annum and the term of each loan within the credit facility is 180 days. During the period ended February 28, 2013, the Company renewed all such loans and entered into an additional credit facility with LafiseBank of Panama for $0.9 million under the same terms.
As at February 28, 2013, the outstanding obligation relating to these facilitiesis$2.9 million (May 31, 2012 - $2 million).
During the period ended February 28, 2013, the Company, through its subsidiary PDI S.A, entered into two separate loan arrangements with Global Bank of Panama for a total amount of $0.7 million. The loans earn interest at 6% per annum and are repayable within three years. Total principal and interest payments amount to $17 thousand and $3.5 thousand, respectively during the period. As at February 28, 2013, the outstanding obligation relating to these loans is $0.68 million.The obligation forms part of the liabilities of disposal group (Note 6).
During the year ended May 31, 2011, the Company through its subsidiary PDI S.A., entered into two finance leases through a credit Line Leasing Facility with Global Bank of Panama for a total value of $4.8 million. The leases accrue interest of 6.25% per annum for a period of five years to maturity. Total principal and interest payments on these leases for the nine months ended February 28, 2013 amount to $0.7 million and $0.17 million, respectively. At February 28, 2013, the outstanding obligation relating to these finance leases is $3.15 million (May 31, 2012 - $3.8 million)
During the year ended May 31, 2012, the Company through its subsidiary PDI S.A., entered into five finance leases through a Credit Line Leasing Facility with Global Bank of Panama for a total value of $5 million. The leases accrue interest of 6.25% per annum for a period of five years to maturity. Total principal and interest payments on these leases for the nine months ended February 28, 2013 amount to $0.7 million and $0.2 million. At February 28, 2013, the outstanding obligation relating to these finance leases is $3.7 million (May 31, 2012 - $4.4 million). As a condition of the leases, the equipment serves as collateral throughout the term of the lease and is registered with the Public Registry of the Republic of Panama.
Also during the year ended May 31, 2012, the Company through its subsidiaries Petaquilla Gold S.A. and PDI S.A., entered into six finance lease arrangements with Caterpillar Credito, S.A. de C.V. Sucursal Panama ("Caterpillar Financial") for a total value of $4.5 million ($1.4 million and $3.1 million, respectively). These leases accrue interest of 6% per annum for a period of five years to maturity. Total principal and interest payments on these leases for the nine months ended February 28, 2013 amount to $0.48 million ($0.12 million from Petaquilla Gold S.A. and $0.36 million, from PDI S.A.) and $0.14 million ($0.04 million from Petaquilla Gold S.A. and $0.1 million from PDI S.A.). At February 28, 2013, the outstanding obligation relating to these finance leases is $2.9 million ($0.9 million from Petaquilla Gold S.A. and $2.0 million from PDI S.A.) (May 31, 2012- $3.4 million ($1 million from Petaquilla Gold S.A. and $2.4 million from PDI S.A.)).
During the period ended February 28, 2013, the Company through its subsidiary PDI S.A, entered into further two finance lease arrangements with Lafise Bank of Panama and Global Bank of Panama for $1.1 million and $0.8 million, respectively. TheleasewithLafiseBankofPanamaaccruesinterestof7.00%perannum for aperiod of three years while the lease with Global Bank of Panama accrues interest at 6.25% for a period of five years. Total principal and interest payments on these leases for the nine months ended February 28, 2013amount of $0.16 million and $0.05 million, respectively. At February 28, 2013, the outstanding obligation relating to these finance leases with Lafise Bank of Panama and Global Bank of Panama is $0.95 million and $0.74 million, respectively.
All of the Company’s finance leases agreements entered into through its subsidiary PDI S.A. have been reclassified as liabilities of disposal group (Note6).
During the period ended February 28, 2013, the deposits set up for equipment purchases (May 31, 2012 - $4,997,526) have been transferred to mineral properties, plant and equipment and inventory on completion of the plant expansion project at the Company’s Molejon mine.
Convertible loan
On February 24, 2012, the Company entered into a convertible non-revolving term loan agreement(“the Convertible Loan”)with DeutscheBank AG, LondonBranch (“DeutscheBank”)forproceedsofCAD$6,000,000.TheCompany paid Deutsche Bank a loan structuring fee (“Structuring Fee”) of CAD $90,000 ($90,635) and received net proceeds of CAD $5,910,000 on March 14, 2012. The Convertible Loan bears interest at an annual rate of 6.35% and matures on February 24, 2016. At the option of the lender, the Convertible Loan can be converted into common shares of the Company at a conversion per share of CAD $0.6121, which was calculated based on the five-day volume weighted average share price of the Company’s common shares on March 14, 2012.
Dilution is it real or not?
First we have to realize that an exploration company has no revenue therefore if the company needs money to explore or to build let's say a mill they either sell future production sell shares or borrow the money. The sell of shares is via a private placement or the exercise of options by management.
PTQ did all of the above and as JFF pointed out PTQ did a very limited number of private placements as compared to other companies in the mining sector.
The dilutive effect of private placement depends on what the company does with the money. If it goes to expenses it is dilutive if it is to buy or build an asset it is not.
It should be noted that in 2007 the asset value of the company was $46M. Today the asset value is $223M
It should also be noted that during the last several years management has exercised their options with their own money at a much higher conversion rate than the present share price.
All the following numbers are rounded out
On April 30th 2007 the company had 90M shares
PP of 4.5M shares with proceeds of $11M
Option exercised 1M shares with proceeds of $3M
Warrants exercised .4 shares with proceed of 1.1M
On April 30th 2008 the company had 96M shares
Option exercised 100,000 shares
On April 30th 2009 the company had 96M shares
PP of 28M shares with proceeds of $12M
Option exercised .8M shares with proceeds of $.6M
Warrant exercised .5M shares with proceed of $.4M
On April 30th 2010 the company had 125M shares
PP of 32M shares with proceeds of $32M
Option exercised .5M shares with proceeds of $.6M
Warrants exercised 18.5M shares with proceeds of $12M
On April 30th 2011 the company had 176M shares
Acquisition of Iberia for 44M shares. Non dilutive event since it is an asset acquisition
On April 30th 2012 the company had 221.9M shares
Since that time
Option exercised 366,000 proceeds $3M
As of fiscal Q3 2013 222.2 M shares
In conclusion the delicate balance of dilution during exploration and growing the company assets was very well managed and the massive dilution of 3X with continued massive dilution in the future is just not real.
Mr CP please let me know if I got it right about your post:
Per request you performed a brilliant, in depth research about production numbers and share price. Your research unveiled the following:
Some posters, some time ago made statements on some media about production and stock value of Petaquilla.
Several other unspecified predictions were also made somewhere at some point by some people
Since the predictions made by the posters did not come true including the unspecified predictions it is therefore the fault of management if it did not happen. Any other statement on production and operation made by management are superseded by the anonymous posters.
I researched the TSX rules and could not find that particular rule. Maybe Mr CP could point out the rule to us.
Also, I would like to address the constant statements made about massive dilution of Petaquilla. My next post will cover that.
Mr. CP. Could you please point out the Press release where the company forcasted a share price of $5.00 and a production of 150,000 oz per year. I looked for it but I still cannot find it.
I can only find production of
2010 28K
2011 57K
2012 69K
2013 75K
2014E 90K
Also, concerning another cut and paste statement that has been used numerous times "Vancouver Penny mining stock excuses" could you please point out what comparable company or companies in the gold mining sectors has a better PE ratio than 2 and can show 14 or so profitable quarters in a row. That way we can really gauge how much Petaquilla needs to make excuses for their poor performance compared to peers.
Just to make sure that you follow the IHUB rules of on-topic please provide a comparison table that includes Petaquilla with market cap, number of quarter profitable, PE ratio and share price.
I did a similar table comparing Petaquilla cash cost as well as another one with Gold companies performance against their 52 weeks high.
Thanks in advance for your in depth research contribution to this Board
Then I should also be flogged considering that I am the one that has expressed concerns specifically about the AP for quite some time.
Now, for the questions "not answered or acknowledge" several things.
1- It is a bit difficult to take someone seriously when that person states that employees have not been paid for the last 3 months and the company is still running mining gold, drilling 20,000ft in Spain and building an access ramp in Spain.. Really!!!
2- Aren't we discussing the issued of the AP so how can it be that it is not acknowledged. Some of the large AP are in friendly or insiders hands that think of it has a loan and the company does not seem to lose sleep over it. It stills bug me by the way. I would like a cleaner balance sheet.
3- I hear a lot of discussion about schedules not being met on per example such things as the 4th ball mill because suppliers have not been paid.
Just to refresh non reader of PR's, parts arrived June 2nd and the schedule at that time was for commissioning the expension at the end of October 2012. (per PR)
The effective date of the commissioning was November 2012. Not bad for installing such a huge piece of equipment and increasing a plant capacity by 33%.
I could go on but just to make sure that we measure the company to the correct data points or any company for that matter I would like to point out a few things. We cannot expect a company to meet schedules that some stockholders would like to have or got them from a dream they had. It is hard enough in any business to make schedule on large projects (Boeing is 3 years late on the 787 program, Airbus is 3 years late on the 380 program).
In term of production a lot of references have been made to have 150K by this summer. I could not find a PR that reflects that number. I did find a PR (July 3rd 2012) that expects a run rate of 250K to 300K by the end of calendar 2015. Last time I check we have a way to go before the end of 2015.
I guess I am also a contrarian since I have been critical of several instances when the company was less than transparent. ded Kite, Heap Leach to name a few The difference is that I am a constructive contrarian. Some people on the Board have brought up some very good point and I am happy to try to answer them wi
Cheers to all
The reason you did not hear that scenario from the company it's because it is no a scenario preferred by the company. That simple.
I am only one voice and I am not on the Board so not much I can do outside of repeating the same thing to the company multiple times. What I can tell you is that more and more people are telling the company the same thing.
Trying to be balanced in my evaluation I do not have all the elements of the puzzle so I can only give an opinion based on a limited set of facts. Who knows I may agree if I knew everything.
Oops that would make me an insider and I could not talk about it.
Have a nice day
I would like to point your attention to previous posts. Here is one of them:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=89619544
Right on. Let's just have an extended cocktail hour there is no hurry.
Now if you are a trader this can offer you some very nice in and out then back in plays. I do not play that game but some people are very good at it. I should say some also lose their shirt.
Nice info on the aggregate start up of $1M a month considering FQ is redoing all of the plans. We should be able to ramp up when they go full speed. My understanding is that it is at 35% margin. That's $4M of pre tax profit (G&A already absorbed) per year. Or 2c a share!!!
If you try to extrapolate to a $120M contract over 3 years (easier to calculate and in between 100 and 150 ) then you are talking about 7c a share per year for 3 years. Yes that's without the gold / silver or anything else. Not bad for a 32c stock.
You are right VB and that's my biggest problem with this deal. Both companies will need to have an arm length relationship but the arms are getting very short when it is the same management / ownership.
Management will be able to decide what company makes what profit by playing with the transfer price. Been there done that.
You look at where the best multiplier is and you act accordingly.
Long term it is a very good strategy but what I would like to have right now is a clear separation with transfer prices established both ways:
PDI sell services to PTQ at what price
PTQ sells aggregate material to PDI at what price
We should run that way for 2 years with pro-format P&L for each division and consolidated P&L.
That way we get it all. Less need to raise money to free up PDI of the DB chains. High revenue / profit for PTQ that will finance Spain. A growing PDI with work outside of Molejon.
To top that PDI becomes the service supplier to PTQ Spain and PTQ Portugal.
Cheers,
Here is the issue: They cannot do the spin-off until they get financing to unlock PDI and the source of fund does not want to do the spin-off right away so they keep a nice package for the collateral.
Who do you think win that one? The money of course.
Heap leach in Spain.
Here are two interesting links to the status of Heap leach regulations in Europe and world wide.
http://www.e-mj.com/index.php/features/1656-the-current-status-of-cyanide-regulations
http://www.justiceandenvironment.org/_files/file/2011%20cyanide%20analysis.pdf
This part of the first link relates to the EU regulation and of course Spain
"Europe has been resisting the idea of a complete ban, but it has a very low threshold of tolerance for cyanide use. The European Union (EU) has set the most stringent cyanide limits for tailings ponds in the world—Adopted Directive 2006/21/EC, on the management of waste from mineral extraction operations. Article 13(6) requires “the concentration of weak acid dissociable cyanide in the pond [be] reduced to the lowest possible level using best available techniques.” All mines started after May 1, 2008, may not discharge waste containing more than 10 ppm WAD cyanide, and mines built or permitted before that date are allowed no more than 50 ppm initially, falling to 25 ppm in 2013 and 10 ppm by 2018. Article 14 also requires that mine operators put in place financial guarantees to ensure cleanup after the mine has finished. In 2006, the EU rejected a proposal to ban all cyanide use. The EU presumed that stringent regulations already in place provide adequate environmental and human health protection."
Looks like we are OK in Spain.
I think you will find most of the answers on the company web site, presentation and info box.
The 43-101 is a very formal document required by the TSX and is full of carefully stated numbers by a third party that is liable for their statements. Another word, the umbrellas are out.
Companies have their own set of numbers and drive the investments they make in drilling (multi million $)from their best assumptions. They do not drill where the 43-101 say the gold is, they drill where they think it is in order to expand the 43-101. PTQ is no different than any other mining company.
Many analysts will only take the 43-101 numbers and consider that the rest does not exist. That is just fine because they have their own set of liabilities toward their clients but it is why they sometime miss the boat. It is also a good way for them to tell you "I told you so" if things go wrong which they sometime do but that's life in the mining world.
Cheers
Correct they could have a big pile of low grade ore.
You can process the low grade ore later using low cost processing such as Heap leach if it is acceptable in Spain (I do not know if it is).
The yield used for the cash cost is for the justification of processing ore in Panama not for the life of the mine.
Remember that this is temporary and the overall plan is to build a 1,200 t/day mill in Spain in the next 3 years. With the Spanish mill in production then you take out the $150 / ton transportation cost.
Now you made me think of an interesting point that I did not include. If they separate the ore then do you have to mine much more ore than 240KT to get to the good stuff. I have no idea if the separation and extra mining is included in the mining cost. It could be that they will just go directly where the high concentration is without removing anything else. I will ask.
Good thinking. Keeps me on my toes
Good question and thanks for asking that way.
You are correct the inferred is 4.25 g/t average. Note the word "average"
The company stated in a corporate presentation on January 2013 the following concerning Spain:
"Primary crushing performed at Lomero-Poyatos, remaining processing performed at Molejón after shipping from Lomero-Poyatos
Initial shipping will be of high-grade mineralized material (~13.0 grams of Gold equivalent ounces per ton) which provides a
significant cost advantage"
Apparently they will be analyzing the ore as it is mined , separate the high yield one and crush it at LP. They do that at Molejon by the way.
I agree with everybody that the number 12.8 g/t seems very high and that is why I recalculated with much lower yield.
Hope that helps
I agree with you and that is why I recalculated with 10g/t and that's inside your numbers.
Even at 10 g/t we look good anyway.
At 8 g/t we would be at $850 Au / oz
Cheers
Well, you need a few small things before you start with the Spanish ore:
Get the ramp built. They started but it will take 6 months
Get the water out. That's a lot of water down there and it needs to be processed.
You got to ship it and for that you need to get the logistics right with all permits
You are correct about the fact that there are other processing issues but I do not have a good answer for you. I am guessing that they will schedule the mill to process the different types of ore at different times. It is the mill manager's job to figure that one out and I do not want that job. It is a 4,000 t a day mill so it would take only 60 days to process the 240 KT. They have plenty of room to figure it out.
Here is another guess on my part:
It will take a very long time to fund and build the 1,200 t/d mill in Spain ($50M to $60M price tag). I think we will be shipping ore to Panama for a long time to come and if we maintain cash cost below $700 I do not see anything wrong with that.
Spain cash cost
Here are some numbers based on about 240,000 T of ore being processed.
The expectation is that the gold content of the ore being shipped will be very high. The number given is 12.8 g/t or 89,000 oz of Au Eq
The processing cost is:
Mining at LP $34/t
Crushing at LP $1.7/t
Transportation to Molejon $150/t
Processing at Molejon $32.5/t
Cash cost $589 Au /oz
If the ore yield "only" 10 g/t
Cash cost $671 Au /oz
My initial calculation was $700 Au /oz
The next 2 questions are:
When will we start processing Spanish ore at Molejon (my WAG April 2014)
Shipment rate of the 240KT
More to come
Agree, we do not need expansion right now. We are in need of a lot more CAPEX than we have available to handle our present portfolio of properties.
However, remember that it takes 10 to 15 years to get a mine to the point where you start digging so there is nothing wrong with looking at the color of the grass in the next field. Opportunity is only available to people that look for it.
Just take a look at the Org chart of the company (page 22 of the corporate presentation). R. Fifer is the Chairman and chief long term strategist. The management team is handling the day to day issues and mid term strategy. The company has set itself up for the long run.
The point of bringing up expansion is that you need to look at this company as a long term play. Put a few $ worth of PTQ in a tax free account and look at it in 15 years. There is more than a decent chance that you kids or grand kids college will be paid for. It is amazing how fast an account like that can multiply when you add shares with dividends received. That part is anticipated 3 to 4 years from now for cash dividend. Equity dividend will come before that.
Yes, there is always a down side risk in any investment that is why you should only buy what you can afford to loose. In the case of PTQ the long term risk reward is one of the best one around but not the only one. (IMO of course)
How is your day so far PMC51?
Be aware that there is something different between SH and IH. Posts can be deleted. Your last post was not deleted by me but by IH administrator. darn, they beat me to it.
jalbiglog and I are having an interesting discussion and we are keeping it at what it should be: an interesting discussion.
He may not agree with me, I may not agree with him but that's what makes a constructive discussion. He challenges my conclusions without personal attack and that is just fine with me.
I can't wait until I see your famous cut and past of "starry eyes investors" or "missing the biggest gold bull market in history".
You are more than welcome to participate in the discussion as long as you bring some decent analysis vs. your cut and past.
"in god we trust, others bring facts"
Cheers PMC
Good question and it deserves an answer.
When you look at a company you always find good things and not so good things. I do not know any perfect company.
When I look at PTQ and recommend PTQ to my friends and family (those 2 groups are the most dangerous groups to make a recommendation to) I tell them that I looked at the positives and negatives and made a judgment call that the positives by far outweigh the negatives.
The AP problem will be solved but I keep highlighting it because it bugs me. They made a lot of progress toward resolving that issue last quarter. The deal with FQ included $12M forgiveness of royalties due to FQ by PTQ. That amount was accrued in the AP but you may have not noticed that.
The balance of the AP is apparently in friendly hands but I would prefer it to go away. You are right institutions do not like that because they fear the worst. However the deal with FQ brings so much cashflow that if needs be it can be collateralized since it is a take or pay to take care of the AP question.
On the other side of the ledger is the fact that the company is growing, making money and is way undervalued on multiple levels IMO of course.
Now that I said that I feel like a company putting out PR,s and being looked at saying too much at the same time that they say too little. I am not afraid to list what I like and do not like. I do highly recommend PTQ and tell people it is my new Mart Resources. I tell them what I do and that is buying PTQ as much as I can but I also tell them that there are no sure things, PTQ caries a certain amount of risks and I like the risk reward of that company.
I also tell them "remember it's your money not mine"
Hope that helps.
I think I was the one raising the AP as an issue if I recall. Has I said I am not satisfied and I keep on asking.
If all companies in the sector were able to get financing easily then I would agree that PTQ management is not doing a good job but I do not know if you realize but 750 companies in the mining sector on TSX have less than $1M in cash right now. Not much for an industry known for requiring a lot of CapEx.
There is not much new money if any available for juniors, mid tier or senior for that matter. Barrick is laying off people in Toronto to save money.
PTQ is hiring in Spain and started work on the ramp. II think t was on a PR to let stockholders know what they were doing
Speaking of PR's, as much as I agree that the company should be more transparent on some subjects you always have to benchmark how the company is doing compared to others in the same sector. Go to Sedar, add up all the PR's over the last 2 years and I can tell you that we are not doing too badly. I agree they could do better mind you.
Speaking of not doing too badly. Even so the US was closed today I had quite a day on the TSX. It was a 4th of July fireworks.
Cheers
Just to make sure we got the story straight about the July 17th 2012 PR.
When one talks about a "private placement" it is usually a stock purchase from treasury shares and they have a warrant attached.
In this case the PR stated that the company
"announced that it intends to offer on a private placement basis US$210 million aggregate principal amount of senior secured notes
due in 2017"
The terms of the Red Kite deal fall under that classification. The note offering or loan was up to $210M Red kite considered that they could accomplish the plan for $140M.
So they announce they intend to do something (TSX rules it is material and needs to be announced" They get a possible deal and announce it (again same TSX rule)
Where I am not happy and I agree with you is the fact that the Red Kite deal is dead and that should have been announced.
The item that bugs me the most is not if they missed the start up of the 4th ball mill by a month or other items like that. My big item is the level of the account payable. Way too high and I do not know who it is owed to.
Cheers
An opinion is only as valid as the facts backing it.
Mr Fifer is not the CEO so it is hard to be fired out of a job you do not have. Please refer to page 22 of the corporate presentation.
Mr Fifer is the Executive Chairman of the company and is elected every year at the AGM by a vote of the shareholders.
That would be at the end of 2013
The officers of the company are elected by the Board of the company
We have a very different opinion of the impact of a change of directors.
Do you really think that the SP would go higher after a management change? What about most of the gold companies in the world? after all they performed a lot worst that PTQ. Would their SP go up if they changed their directors or CEO?
Do you really think that all . brokers in NYC, Toronto, London, Frankfurt, i.e. the Market, are anxiously waiting in front of their screen for Petaquilla to make a change in their management structure before they buy the stock? You do realize that the market cap of PTQ is $65M and the total market caps of the 70 companies I listed in a previous email is $162B. I will save you the calculation PTQ is 0.04% of the market cap of the 70 companies.
Do you really think that a majority of shareholders would want a change after 2 profitable years and the Q4 results (hint, it will be a good one) when a majority of the same stockholders are more than friendly to Richard Fifer. That's a tall mountain to climb.
I have no emotion about this I just state facts
You do realize that the company does not have to tell you everything they are doing they just have to comply to TSX rules.
The TSX has rules on disclosure and you may find them interesting. Do understand that may rules have exceptions such as disclosures that would damage negotiations.
Also there are no regulations on having to forecast production. Actually corporate lawyers hate that type of discussion by senior management since it is a no win situation for the company.
http://www.tmx.com/en/pdf/TSX_DisclosureStandardsMineralExploration.pdf
http://www.tmx.com/en/pdf/PolicyStatementOnTimelyDisclosure.pdf
Including the filing guidelines:
http://www.tmx.com/en/pdf/TSXFilingGuide.pdf
Petaquilla files on time their results and other documents so unless it is a violation of TSX rules they are in the clear.
Now that I said that I do agree that they should be more forthcoming on several subjects and sometime be silent on other subject until it happens PDI being an example of silent is sometime better.
I think a position of clearly communicating you concern with management is a lot better than moaning about it for years. If they don't answer to your satisfaction then bail.
A company will never be able to satisfy every stockholders.
Thanks to every one
We are elevating the discussion so let's keep it up.
We are all here to make money period.
We help each others by sharing info
There is something interesting in every post even the bad one
We do not have to agree with a poster but we can politely challenge their assumption or conclusion by pointing out facts
Some posters may say or ask something that appears less than informed and we should help them vs. belittling them. I read everything I can about the companies I follow but I often miss something.
Posters should not make wild claim "Fifer is a gonner" when they cannot substantiate it in any reasonable way. I like "IMO and this is why" a lot better.
Mining is a very difficult sector. You know when you start digging but you are never quite sure what you will find, how long it will take and how much it will cost. So unless you have been the most perfect mining CEO who never missed anything give management some slack when they are late or miss some target especially if they put money at the bottom line anyway. I remember reading something about throwing the first stone in an old book.
Remember that you always have an option.
If you do not like the company sell and move on.
Let's make this a smart and educational Board
VBgood, glad you reminded me of the JV. A lot of what I said could be done under the umbrella of a JV by moving PTQ Panama asset under the JV against some help on funding Spain.
A lot of potential plays here. This could become very interesting.
Thanks for sharing on the ground rumors with all the qualifiers that it is only a rumor..
It is obvious that FQ would want to take a look at picking up the all package when the SP of all gold companies is so depressed. When I say the all package I do include Spain but not PDI.
2 factors that may prevent that outcome:
Everything and everybody has a price but in a the case of Fifer he is going after legacy and he is not done so the price will be high. Let's also not forget that the mill in Panama is worth more than the market cap of PTQ.
FQ loaded themselves with a bunch of debt after the acquisition of Inmet $200M may not be that much compared to a few billions but under the very difficult financial climate of mine investing they may be at the limit of their borrowing power. Only FQ CFO can assess that.
There is another option however but it is only a WAG it is not based on any comments made by insiders.
They could do a bit of horse trading with Spain.
FQ takes Panama and unload to PTQ some assets in Spain right next to PTQ.
Add to that a spin off of PDI.
That way almost everybody is happy
FQ gets their construction cost down and get rid of the pain that PTQ represents for them without creating more debt.
PTQ gets a huge development in Spain, gets European financing from the EU, start developing Portugal and looks toward Africa. (mark my words on that last one)
PDI strategy of becoming a multinational mining construction company is intact.
Again it is only a WAG. It is an educated WAG however
GLTA
PS. Re-reading my post I have second thought about PDI. FQ always said that they want to do everything in house!!!
"Fifer is a gonner" Could you give us more details on how you come up with this interesting conclusion. Also let us know who is leading the charge on the management shakeup. Did some of the Board members share their plans with you? They must know you a lot better than me to share with you that kind of insider info.
One may agree or disagree if the company is well managed and one can argue about the pace of progress but it would be a rare event to see a Board Chairman that grow a company, turn in 14 profitable quarters in a row, provide a clear success path on a 5 year strategic plan be out-voted by the Board of Directors he hand picked.
I would love to know how that works when he and his family control 17% of the stock, controls the Board, controls most of the large shareholders and is the one with the political pull in Panama and Spain.
Just remember the Panama supreme court decision and the big guy (Inmet) loosing. It did not just happen.
Can't wait for the detailed rational.
There are a lot of things I am not always happy about:
AP being too high
PDI spin off is not a good idea now (IMO)
Transparency for some aspects of the company
Etc. Etc.
I think we should keep the discussion centered on that type of subjects vs some wild speculation based on nothing. The definition of Mid-tier producer is also not one of my favorite subject but at least it is entertaining.
Cheers
Welcome to all the Stockhouse refugees
Let's try to make it a better Board and share our knowledge so we can all make money. I think at the end of the day that is what we are after.
Cheers from your friendly moderator
Happy Canada day.
Not much to expect today with Canada and HK closed.
See you Tuesday.
Speaking of HK. They are closed today (meaning Monday) July first is a holiday in HK.
Cheers
Food for thoughts.
First, boys and girls let's keep it nice let's just stick to good informative content that helps all of us. That is all I will say about that.
News from the East.
A lot of people including insiders and outsiders are trying to do something about helping the valuation of this company. I know the company has been working on some new funding (debt not equity) but I have no idea how advanced the discussions are. It is really hard to raise any money right now.
I am one of the outsider trying to contribute. I do a lot of travel including visiting both mines. Last week I was in Hong Kong at the Standard Chartered Bank Earth Resource Forum. It was quite a conference with very high level panels and presenters. Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel prize in economics was one of them. 450 investors and funds participated. Yes I was on one of the Oil panels. During several of the networking sessions I discussed my oil business of course but I took the opportunity to discuss gold and Petaquilla with several funds and investors including the 2 largest commodity traders in Asia. Many investors had no idea who Petaquilla was but more than I expected were aware of PTQ due to the FQ/Inmet publicity.
All of them were intrigued by PTQ and asked for more info. Some were stunned by the fundamentals (PE, cash cost, contract with FQ,) and they either asked me for more info or told me they would ask their analysts to take a look at it. They are all aware that the sector is depressed but they are looking for the low hanging fruit and I mean the one with very low cash cost.
Major reaction to that kind of discussion is usually slow (research) but many people will throw a bit of money at it just in case. I know some of the recent buyers.
The important thing is that when PTQ comes out with their Q4 and other news in the next 60 to 90 days you can be assured that they will remember. And just in case they don't I will remind them. The old "I told you so"
One more thing that is important to understand for the sector. Everybody at the forum was convinced that gold will got to $4,000 to $5,000. Nobody has any idea when. Central banks are buying big time (China 4,000 tons) mines are closing (cash cost +Capex is at a $1,250 average) and stuff will happen somewhere in the world. When they run for the gold they will find out that not much is available. You know the rest of the story.
Cheers
Miners stock performance
Check my post on SH. I am having problems with the formatting on IHUB.
Cheers
http://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/t.ptq/petaquilla-minerals-ltd?threadid=21571572
Earth Resource Forum, The Gold report, Chen Lin
I just got back from Hong Kong today. I was there to attend the Standard Chartered Bank Earth resources forum. A lot of very high level discussions about Gold and oil took place at the forum. (One Nobel prize laureate participating). Bottom line is Central Banks are buying massive amount of gold on the cheap and they are strong hands. The "available for trade" physical gold is diminishing rapidly. When the next bad event happens and there is always one coming, people will run to gold as they have always done and gold will jump way way above record level. When? who knows!!!
My friend Chen Lin is discussing gold and platinum in an interview made by The Gold Report. He also covered one of his favorite gold stock Petaquilla.
Here is the link:
http://www.theaureport.com/pub/na/15389
In Hong Kong I discussed Petaquilla with several large Asian funds and they were very interested. They really liked the story. Some of them were aware of PTQ due to Inmet and FQ but did not know the fundamentals.
The estimate was made for trucks using 25 Ton containers from LP to Huelva. The road to Huelva is 90km.
On the Panama side they would use 15 Ton trucks on a 203 km road. A second potential solution is using larger trucks (25T) for part of it but it needs a transfer / storage at km 163.
Ask and you shall receive.
2 possible reasons:
1. When was the last time a Gov. moved fast on infrastructure?
2. Maybe they looked at the long term ROI and it did not look good. That one is only a guess since I do not really know.
If I recall when I asked the question about why no rail the answer was "we looked at it with the local and central government and it was not a financially viable solution" After that I dropped it.
It does not mean it could not be revived with new mining rail customers.
Cheers
This was one of the first question I asked when I went to LP. It is an obvious one when you look at the landscape. The old railroad came all the way to the mine. Photos show the loading dock at the LP mine. Only the local government could do it. It would take a lot of work with some bridges having to be redone. The problem is that the cost is high and the government is out of money.
Also remember that it is a temporary fix for LP. 5 years from now we will have a mill in operation and we will not need to transport ore. That is if the mill is big enough of course.
Cheers
cool your jets guys. We are all on the same side. We want to make money and we will.
Now, speaking of $5M or € 5M. Not sure it makes any difference since the paper got it wrong anyway. The cost of the ramp is about € 5M but that has not been spent yet, it is only in the startup stage. The ramp budget is for €5M. What has already been spent is around €4M with the drilling, infrastructure etc.
There are 2 things to keep in mind about the land.
Surface right and underground rights. PTQ is working on getting all the surface rights for LP. It would really help long term. I don't want to go into details about that one but it is very important. Just keep that in mind when it is published.
The other one is San Telmo. See the Ibox for pictures. This is a much bigger deal than everybody thinks or realize. This will take 2 or 3 years to get to it but it is very big.
Anyway, keep smiling we will get there.
Cheers