Jump to content

EXT


ShareCafe

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 8.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Just few observations on EXT and KAH shareholding situation. It will be interesting to see if any other parties will step-in to challenge Chinese in the next few days or will this become Chinese-RIO play only.

 

1. HendersonÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s have non binding commitment to sell only 3.9% of their shares (i.e. 9,839,083 shares) to CGNPC. Their total stake in KAH is in fact 5.8%. They have also recently notified CGNPC that they sold 466,317 shares that were subject to the non binding agreement.

 

2. JP MorganÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s combined stake in EXT and KAH is now equivalent to about 10% of EXT total shareholding. This suggests that JP Morgan is either buying up shares for another party or it may use its significant position to drive/extract best possible deal.

 

3. HSBC stake of 4.64% has largely remained unchanged now for considerable time. Therefore I expect that HSBC intends to use its position in a similar way as JP Morgan.

 

4. Recent RNS announcements of KAH holdings show increased numbers of North American event driven hedge funds. The typical risk metrics for these hedge funds stands generally at >30% (but more closer to 50%) return on investment.

 

5. Assuming that no major KAH shareholders sell out before 5th January then Chinese will at best gain about 10% stake in KAH (i.e. equivalent to ~4% of EXT). IMO Chinese are well aware that they will not gain control of EXT unless they put up serious offer (i.e. an offer that would be hard to justify by other parties). I believe the objective of their current low bid is to collect as many cheap shares as possible. However their next move may be on the surprise side with the bid price rising to around $10 - $11 range. At this level they are likely to gain more acceptances and therefore secure strong position at the negotiation table with RIO or any other party that may launch serious bid for EXT.

 

6. The combined (i.e. EXT and KAH) RIO and Itochu shareholding in EXT stands currently at ~37.8%. Assuming that CGNPC gains 10% stake in KAH then the number of EXT shares not available for sale would increase to about 42%. Any further delays by other interested parties in launching their bid (other then RIO) could mean that they are likely to loose out on gaining outright control of EXT (assuming some allowance for Epangalo shareholding).

 

post-13034-1325412095_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies as I have found couple mistakes in my previous EXT shareholder chart. The attached figure shows correct values (i.e. remaining top 20 shareholders 4.1% instead of 8.22% and HSBC 5.31% instead of 4.64%). I have also attached couple word files illustrating examples of shareholding situation under selected takeover scenarios. There are many other possibilities and you may want to play with these based on your set of assumptions.

 

EXT_and_KAH_shareholders.doc

EXT_and_KAH_shareholders1.doc

Takeover_scenario1.doc

Takeover_scenario3.doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Did Fukushima Really Put a Nail in Atomic Power's Coffin?

/pdf/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Did-Fukushima-Really-Put-a-Nail-in-Atomic-Power-s-Coffin.pdf/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Did-Fukushima-Really-Put-a-Nail-in-Atomic-Power-s-Coffin/Print.html/component/option,com_mailto/link,aHR0cDovL29pbHByaWNlLmNvbS9BbHRlcm5hdGl2ZS1FbmVyZ3kvTnVjbGVhci1Qb3dlci9EaWQ

tRnVrdXNoaW1hLVJlYWxseS1QdXQtYS1OYWlsLWluLUF0b21pYy1Qb3dlci1zLUNvZmZpbi5odG1s/tmpl,component/ Written by Llewellyn King Monday, 02 January 2012 02:47###There have been a flurry of antinuclear events in the United States since Christmas. Presumably, those who are opposed to nuclear power want to take advantage of the news lull to hammer home their bleak message: Fukushima Daiichi was the effective end of nuclear power, at least in the northern industrialized world.

 

But was it? Maybe it proved that nuclear power can take a drubbing and survive.

 

If you are a nuclear power believer, the three GE-built reactors proved their mettle during the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan's Fukushima province in March. They withstood all that nature could throw at them although terrible damage resulted from the loss of external power and the swamping of the emergency diesel generators. The result was core melting and trouble in the used fuel storage pools.

 

If you are doubtful about nuclear power, or you are simply a political opportunist, this event was the final nail in the coffin, the proof that the end had arrived. For you, it provided more evidence that nuclear power is inherently unsafe and that its use, as American scientist Alvin Weinberg once said, is a Faustian bargain. (It was a remark that Weinberg wished he had not made and which his staff and supporters tried to justify by explaining that in the German legend, Faust finally gets his soul back, having foolishly pledged it to the devil.)

 

Such nonsense aside, the extraordinary thing about Fukushima is that although almost 25,000 Japanese died as the result of the earthquake and tsunami, no one died directly from the nuclear accident or from the release of radioactivity. The buildings and containment structures survived as they were designed to 40 years ago. This, despite a wall of water 45 feet high with incalculable force.

 

Each year, thousands of people are killed in coal mine accidents around the world. In 2010, 2,433 people were killed in China's mines, the world's deadliest.

 

Yet it was nuclear that had the world holding its breath. As with all accidents or even incidents, nuclear is held to a standard of safety orders of magnitude stricter than is applied to any other industrial activity, including other big energy undertakings, like oil refining, chemical production and transportation, and aviation.

 

The suspicion that falls upon nuclear technology is not only unfair ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“ it is uneven.

 

The peace has been kept for five decades by the U.S. nuclear navy. In home waters and ports, nuclear ships and submarines sail without criticism.

Even the two organizations which appear to make their livings from relentless attacks on nuclear, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, have not dared to attack the nuclear navy. They do not protest, say, the USS Enterprise, when the great aircraft carrier sails blithely into domestic ports with eight reactors at work.

 

No one raises issues of waste, terrorist attacks or the consequences of military action. Those who make a living out of opposing nuclear power do not have the temerity to go after nuclear propulsion in warships. The public would not tolerate the disarmament that that would entail.

 

So the opponents go after nuclear's soft underbelly: civilian power. It is hard to imagine that it is more dangerous to operate a nuclear facility built to be safe on land than one built for war-fighting on the high seas and in ports and harbors.

 

There are times in history when triumph is recorded as failure. The British and the Prussians finished off Napoleon in the Belgian town of Waterloo. But in the English Language, ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“WaterlooÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ -- a British victory ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“ is a synonym for catastrophic defeat. Americans believe the Tet Offensive was the turning point in the Vietnam War, even though the combined forces of the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army were roundly defeated by U.S.

and South Vietnamese forces.

 

Fukushima, a once-in-history accident, was a victory of design and construction for its time. Even the radiation releases are now found to be lower than expected, even those in the exclusion zone are surprisingly low. Despite eager attempts to find a surge in new cancers around the plant, none has shown up.

 

The lessons are to incorporate more passive features, better power supply and to protect the emergency generators. Newer designs already incorporate some of these features -- and all will going forward. The industry has reacted with unusual alacrity in the past to new lessons, something uncommon across the broad range of industrial endeavor from aircraft to automobiles. As with aviation, nuclear safety is always a work in progress, a striving.

 

To my mind, after 40 years of chronicling nuclear power, the industry makes a mistake in rushing to advertise the safety of nuclear power plants. That way the seeds of doubt are sown.

 

Aircraft makers learned that lesson back in the 1930s. They learned that the trick was to shut up and do better.

 

If nuclear plants are unsafe, they should be closed down. Now. Today.

 

If not, their virtues should be trumpeted. Now. Today. Where are the trumpets?

 

By. Llewellyn King

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holding(s) in Company

Date :03/01/2012 @ 20:15

Source :UK Regulatory (RNS & others)

Stock :Kalahari Minerals (KAH)

 

TR-1: NOTIFICATION OF MAJOR INTEREST IN SHARESi

 

1. Identity of the issuer or the underlying issuer KALAHARI MINERALS

of existing shares to which voting rights are PLC

attached:ii

GB00B117S132

 

2 Reason for the notification (please tick the appropriate box or boxes):

 

An acquisition or disposal of voting rights Yes

 

An acquisition or disposal of qualifying financial instruments which may result n/a

in the acquisition of shares already issued to which voting rights are attached

 

An acquisition or disposal of instruments with similar economic effect to n/a

qualifying financial instruments

 

An event changing the breakdown of voting rights n/a

 

Other (please specify): n/a

 

3. Full name of person(s) subject to the Ubs Investment Bank

notification obligation:iii

 

4. Full name of shareholder(s) UBS AG London Branch

(if different from 3.):iv

 

5. Date of the transaction and date on

which the threshold is crossed or 22 DECEMBER 2011

reached: v

 

6. Date on which issuer notified: 23 DECEMBER 2011

 

7. Threshold(s) that is/are crossed or 5%

reached: vi, vii

 

8. Notified details:

 

A: Voting rights attached to shares viii, ix

 

Class/type Situation previous Resulting situation after the triggering transaction

of to the triggering

shares transaction

 

Number Number Number Number of voting % of voting rights

if possible of of of shares rights x

using Shares Voting

the ISIN Rights Direct Direct xi Indirect Direct Indirect

CODE xii

 

No No Previous

Previous Disclosure 14,345,069 14,345,069 - 5.72% -

GB00B117S132 Disclosure

 

B: Qualifying Financial Instruments

 

Resulting situation after the triggering transaction

 

Type of Expiration Exercise/ Number of voting % of voting

financial date xiii Conversion Period rights that may be rights

instrument xiv acquired if the

instrument is

exercised/ converted.

 

- - - - -

 

C: Financial Instruments with similar economic effect to Qualifying Financial

Instruments xv, xvi

 

Resulting situation after the triggering transaction

 

Type of Exercise Expiration Exercise/ Number of voting % of voting rights

financial price date xvii Conversion rights instrument xix, xx

instrument period refers to

xviii

 

Nominal Delta

 

- - - - - -

 

Total (A+B+C)

 

Number of voting rights Percentage of voting rights

 

14,345,069 5.72%

 

9. Chain of controlled undertakings through which the voting rights and/or the

financial instruments are effectively held, if applicable: xxi

 

Proxy Voting:

 

10. Name of the proxy holder:

 

11. Number of voting rights proxy holder will cease

to hold:

 

12. Date on which proxy holder will cease to hold

voting rights:

 

13. Additional information:

 

14. Contact name: Nemanja Pantic / Konstantina Georgaki

 

15. Contact telephone number: +41 44 239 6225

 

http://uk.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=50593975

 

 

Key Shareholders (KAH) as at 3 January 2012

Key Shareholders Number Percent

APAC Resources Capital Limited 36,296,059 14.5%

Nippon Uranium Resources Australia Pty Ltd 33,781,505 13.5%

M&G Investment Management 30,600,000 12.2%

Rio Tinto International Holdings Australia Pty Ltd 28,267,310 11.3%

Henderson New Star 14,466,686 5.8%

UBS Investment Bank 14,345,069 5.7%

CQS 12,154,105 4.8%

JP Morgan Asset Management 12,023,400 4.8%

Deutche Bank AG 9,363,639 3.7%

 

http://www.kalahari-minerals.com/Investor_...ault.aspx?id=15

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...