Jump to content

CMQ


mminion

Recommended Posts

In reply to: sabretoothed on Thursday 10/02/05 06:49pm

hello sabretoothed,

Yes,they would be a competitor,only, if one likes orange flavoured chickens.The only similarity that i can see between these 2 companies is that they are both australian. http://www.ShareScene.com/html/emoticons/smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

CMQ making any money yet?

 

Whats the market cap lol

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: brunosch on Thursday 10/02/05 03:51pm

Let's hope this spares our nitpicking sparing partner, bruno, another night of restless sleep worrying about whether Chemeq was a serial lier (with plenty of exclamation marks) when it repeatedly said the plant was scheduled for commissioning by date 1, date2, date 3, etc.

 

No. The company was not lying. It was - and is - simply late. When a train runs later than the scheduled time-table, no one accuses the railway authority of lying.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (wilson5 @ Thursday 10/02/05 06:41pm)

Wilson,

 

I am having a little trouble working out the economics of this product. Partly because there is little detail available. However, if we talk in round figures CMQ has spent $60M+ building a plant. Say we amortise that over 10 years - i.e. $6M p.a.. If they produce 20t/yr to start with, then just the capitalised costs come in at around $300 per litre. I don't know what consititutes an effective dose for their product, but in the pig market $1.00 per dose is about maket price for many treatments, and in the chicken market it is <1c. Quite clearly cmq need to get a lot of doses per litre to make this viable, even without ongoing operating costs, distribution costs, etc.

 

As we see the investment spiraling over $100M this equation gets a lot worse. Am I way off beam here? Can someone enlighten me? http://www.ShareScene.com/html/emoticons/icon14.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: nodil on Thursday 10/02/05 08:15pm

Hi Nodil,

 

I agree. and nobody blames the train scheduler when sets a rediculous time-line. They blame the driver for not going fast enough (until the train de-rails of course). Trouble is, instead of letting the passengers know how long it really is going to be, they as saying some-time soon.

 

Assuming they are producing at 15% - 25% (on-spec) API capacity, each formulated batch should take 4-5 times longer. Therefore, if 1T takes ~2wks (20T/12mths) normally, it now takes 8-10wks. The point being that if all is well, unconditional GMP should be issued Feb/Mar. If that happens, SP should rise - how much? your guess is as good as mine. If not $1 here we come.

 

Any thoughts?

 

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: gregj on Thursday 10/02/05 11:10pm

gregj,

The 20T plant was never going to be commercial - last rights offer doc & previous prospecti. It isn't until the 50T upgrade that the plant becomes commercial. This plant proves process scale up and ability to attract customers only.

 

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: neo99 on Thursday 10/02/05 11:23pm

Neo,

 

I'm not sure that an extra 50t/yr makes a lot of difference to the argument. If it costs, say $120M in total to get to 70t, it still gives a figure of >$170/litre (average over the 10 years) just to recoup the investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (nodil @ Thursday 10/02/05 08:15pm)

Poor Old Nodil,

 

What relevance have your statement got to do with the issue that was discussed? The discussion was on the company's statement:

QUOTE
The facility was scheduled to be completed and in full production by July 2004 following a dry run and commissioning process. The first commercial batch of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) for the antimicrobial agent was produced in August 2004. The initial capacity of 20t/yr will be sufficient to fulfil current contracts but a phase two expansion of the plant facilities is already underway and due for completion in December 2005.

It must bee too hard for you to undertand that the author stated that the plant was scheduled to be in full production by July 2004 at the point in time when the plant was having production problem. Where in the sentences above or in the article did you read Quote: when it repeatedly said the plant was scheduled for commissioning by date 1, date2, date 3, etc.

 

QUOTE
Quoting Nodil: No. The company was not lying. It was - and is - simply late. When a train runs later than the scheduled time-table, no one accuses the railway authority of lying.ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ 
Using your example, let say at 12.00 noon, an old man from the railway authority steps on to the platform and makes the statement that the train is scheduled to arrive at 9.00 am and praises how punctual that train is when the train was 3 hours late and there is no certainty when it will ever arrive, the audienceÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s immediate reaction will be to check the poor old man to see if he is drunk, hallucinating, or having a psychotic episode. (And if he speaks with a foreign ascent, they may even have him detained at Baxter!)

 

When the trains repeatedly run late, no one will and should accuse the railway authority of lying BUT they will rightly complain that the authority is incompetent!

 

Nodil, try to understand the issue discussed before you berate others with your often quoted examples of trains runing late! http://www.ShareScene.com/html/emoticons/thumbdown.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: gregj on Friday 11/02/05 12:14am

gregj,

 

ok, lets assume you mean $300/kg for 20T/yr, which would be $200/kg for 50T/yr (assumes 10Kpa or 40mil for upgrade). $1000/kg was floated as the expected revenue, but probably less. I recall production costs + overheads discussed earlier as $350/kg, so take ur pick.

 

I understood real returns (i.e. div's) are only possible with the MP2 roll-out. It was from there that returns got interesting - but that was projected to 2006, but not now who knows.

 

neo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...