Registered Members Login:
Forgotten Your Details? Click Here To Recover +
Welcome To The ShareCafe Community - Talk Shares And Take Stock With Smart Investors - New Here? Click To Register >

65 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 4 > »    
Reply to this topic

post Posted: Aug 25 2008, 10:07 AM
  Quote Post

Posts: 264
Thanks: 1

In reply to: lurgan on Tuesday 19/08/08 01:55pm

Of significant interest!! The big question is why did Anvil get into SBS in the first place? Was it for the Asmara VMS project since lost to Sunridge that is worth multiple billions of dollars, was it the Zara gold, the tusker gold, or the whole package? If it was say Zara gold with a few extras Anvil might well think of using its cash to buy into SBS even further and use that cash to develop Zara without having to raise too many funds on tha market. If they do try to take over SBS how much would it realisticaly be valued at with say 1 M Oz at Zara and potentially another 1 M Oz at Tusker if they just go for the high grade. In both they would own about 70% when taken to final feasability stage.

post Posted: Aug 19 2008, 12:55 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 223
Thanks: 2

of interest-----

Cash-flush Anvil may consider acquisitions

By: Liezel Hill
Published on 18th August 2008

Copper-miner Anvil Mining will certainly consider acquisition opportunities, in the Democratic Republic of Congo and elsewhere in Africa, but, for now, is mainly focused on completing its Kinsevere Stage II project, investor relations VP Robert la Vallière said on Monday.

La Vallière was commenting on speculation by RBC Capital Markets analyst Cailey Barker that the firm could use its strong cash position as a 'war chest' to embark on merger and acquisition (M&A) activity.

Anvill produces copper from three mines in the DRC, although mining operations have been halted at one of them – the Mutoshi mine – while it considers alternative mining methods and studies the feasibility of building an SX-EW facility at the operation, after poor results from the existing heavy-media separation (HMS) plant.

The company currently has $146-million in cash, and will receive another $296-million this quarter, after placing about 23,7-million shares with Dan Gertler-linked Catala Global.

The miner has indicated that it plans to use the cash on hand for its Kinsevere Stage II and Mutoshi SX-EW projects, but Barker is not convinced.

“We believe part of this may be used as a war-chest for potential M&A activity,” Barker said, in a note dated August 14.

“He's right that we do have a solid cash position, with no debt,” La Vallière agreed in a telephone interview from Montreal.

“We are looking...but at the moment the focus of our company is on completing the Kinsevere Stage II project on schedule.”

With regard to potential targets, the company would not limit itself to the DRC, although it would not likely look outside of the African continent, La Vallière indicated.

When it presented its second quarter results last week, Anvil maintained its production forecast of 47 000 t of copper and 950 000 oz of silver for 2008.

However, Barker raised concerns over whether the company will meet its targets at the Kinsevere operation, where it “appears to be having issues commissioning one of the electric arc furnaces”.

The analyst reduced his 12-month target price for Anvil to C$15,00 a share, but maintained a recommendation of 'outperform, above average risk'.

During a site visit to Kinsevere earlier this month, it appeared that Anvil was “encountering difficulties in hot commissioning the second furnace”. Barker said.

The company has now pushed back the commissioning of the second electric arc furnace to the fourth quarter of this year, citing technical problems, and this is expected to affect production for the remainder of the year.

However, in contrast, the HMS plant at Kinsevere was working well and the recent addition of gravity spiral separators had been commissioned “without problems”, Barker said.

Shares in Anvil were trading at C$7,39 a share at 13:16 ET on Monday, a decline of 0,4% for the day.

post Posted: Aug 14 2008, 01:36 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 264
Thanks: 1

In reply to: Krumbs on Tuesday 12/08/08 07:30pm

Well there you go! After all that there was some progress with Barrick on Tusker. Ann out today that SBS will resume control of the project and develop a feasability study looking at targeting the higher grades, so smaller resource but more potential of getting it up. A lazy million oz would be fine with SBS at over 70% ownership. Sometimes the little players pick up rather big scraps from the Giants like Barrick. Hopefully this will be what it takes to get SBS on a roll. If they are sensible they will fast-track the feasability process with whatever funding they still have in the bank so when it comes to fund raising next time the sp will be off the floor.....

post Posted: Aug 12 2008, 06:30 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 3,207
Thanks: 72

In reply to: MrGreedy1 on Tuesday 12/08/08 05:40pm

It's still in a downtrend along with other stocks. I still hold some of these dogs having sold only about 60% in better times. Can now see I should have dumped the lot! Very ordinary and pedestrian crew running this one IMO.

post Posted: Aug 12 2008, 04:40 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 264
Thanks: 1

In reply to: RADIO on Tuesday 15/04/08 12:08pm

So much for the live broasdcast below. The MD suggested he was about to go chatting with Barrick re progress at Tusker and he would inform shareholders asap. That was months ago and still no progress report.

Still, someone is currently showing interest in SBS with slow but steady low level buying propping up what has otherwise been an agonising slide to oblivion. Hopefully they know something we don't?

post Posted: Apr 15 2008, 11:08 AM
  Quote Post

Posts: 3,268
Thanks: 9

user posted image
Recent Radio Broadcast (08/04/2008 18:00:00):
SBS - Paydirt Gold Conference Presentation - Mr Michael Griffiths, MD

N.B. Radio can normally be accessed by the 'RADIO' link, top of every page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Radio delivers investor presentations from ASX listed companies. Keep up to date with the latest corporate dealings of the shares you follow. Hear news direct from the source. Listen to directors and investor relations mangers discuss their company, give investor updates and brief on current results. Radio keeps you informed about company announcements and events, and provides you daily market wraps and industry discussions.


post Posted: Mar 3 2008, 01:28 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 264
Thanks: 1

In reply to: shovel on Monday 25/02/08 10:50pm

not really sure if there is any value with Tusker at all anyway. Certainly Barrick appear on the surface to have lost interest as Tusket is now not mentioned on any of their presentations. The low grade is a problem, but it is a big enough resource to be worth iopen cut and the grade grade is higher than Barrick mine in South America in places so I still hold out some hope. Especially as Barrick have a big investment in projects in Tanzania and operate there very effectively. SBS are certainly going to inherit the project if Barrick drop it, so in that case it will not be as complicated as the process if they go forward as a JV. It would be incredibly unlike Barrick to go to production as a JV anyway. They always either buy the minnow or buy out the project. I suspect the former is on the cards if Tusker is worthwhile, especially if SBS increase the resource estimate of Zara further without any more enthusiasm for the share price. Currently it looks like a placement is needed soon and as the market has not really responded positively to the Zara upgrade, the dilution should make SBS ripe for a takeover.

post Posted: Feb 25 2008, 09:50 PM
  Quote Post

Posts: 321
Thanks: 4

In reply to: MrGreedy1 on Thursday 21/02/08 09:40am

They should take the cash in time and run from Barrick, 30%/70% JV ?

Posted On: Thursday, September 27, 2007, 2:38:00 PM EST

Jims -- (Responds To Misinformation On JV Partnerships)

Author: Jim Sinclair

Dear Mr. Sinclair:
"As such, many juniors - especially those that are too thick headed and opinionated to know they have a problem - or those that know but will simply not divulge the issue to anyone - are going to be in total violation of 10 b-5. This could open the door to a host of class action litigations."

This, Mr. sinclair, is unfortunately nonsense from A- Z (I hope you will excuse me for calling a spade a spade). A junior company in joint venture with a major on specific projects has its own, distinct contractual obligations. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the contractual obligations the major may have.

Of the ounces produced, the junior owns a percentage. These ounces are subject to the junior’s own obligations, but not the major's.


Dear Heinz,

The nonsense is in what you say.

The junior must subordinate its share of the project to the development loan, and therefore has all the benefit and all the responsibilities of that loan.

The juniors do not own ounces, they own a percentage of a venture. This is why it is called a Joint Venture. A Royalty company like RGLD does in fact own ounces practically free of charge. Junior JVs do not work in this manner.

Yes, of course, a junior has their own agreement with the major, but you demonstrate the industry thick headiness to assume a loan you have signed on and subordinated your property to does not obligate you in the same way as a major. You assume the major takes all the risk and acts in a philanthropic manner with the junior.

Your accounting knowledge also needs some improvement. It is therein that the death of the junior exploration and development lies by not accepting the fact that this junior industry is obligated to the development loan according to their percentage of the JV property.

Review SAS 133 and SAS 138 to track how the derivative required for that non-recourse loan produces benefits or damages which MUST be charged to the project and therefore to the junior according to their percentage of the JV. Once again you are assuming by looking at one document only that the major is a philanthropic entity that will take all the risk of the indenture of the development loan and its embedded derivative requirement on behalf of the junior. This is just plain wrong.

Junior exploration and development companies and their leadership, if they really believe what you said, are afraid to do their own investigation fearing the truth. In this mind set they run in danger of a major 10 b 5 violation.

Would you dare to say that with that major company publicly binding themselves to deliver gold at $325 for years into the future on a 30%/70% JV would deliver 70% of the gold at $325 and 30% of the gold at market? That is complete madness and a total lack of legal and accounting standards.

They have two contracts, one with the major and then they have to sign the loan agreement and subordinate their property interest, thereby now having two contracts. How many juniors have even read the development loan documents of which they are solidly part of?. Few, I believe.

Sadly, you reflect the general thinking which ignored my pleas not to hedge with long OTC derivatives since 1999. Newmont never needed to lose 2,000 million dollars. They got that present, I believe, when they acquired Australian companies up to their eyeballs in exotic long OTC derivative hedges. It "can't hurt me" they all thought just like you feel regarding juniors in JV agreements. Well your "it can't hurt the junior" is sad and totally baseless. Investigate this more thoroughly for yourself, for your sake.


post Posted: Feb 25 2008, 10:44 AM
  Quote Post

Posts: 264
Thanks: 1

Some good news....resource upgrade at Zara to 1 M oz plus a significant grade increase from 3 to 6 g/T. Should make a few people sit up and look. This quantity and grade is rather profitable, even if it is in the back blocks of Eritrea. With 95% recovery of gold, and factoring in Dragons % of the project it is still worth about $700 Mill to SBS. As it is just gold, it may well get off the ground and into production faster than the Bisha project of Nevsun and the Asmara project of Sunridge (both complicated VMS deposits). If you look at a recent report on SBS, it appears the Zara project has heavily involved Erirtean Geologists and the Eritrean Department of mines. Those close linkages should go a long way towards facillitating the necessary approvals and support for the project within Eritrea.

Just hope dilution due to the necessary upcoming fundraising doesn't spoil the party!

post Posted: Feb 21 2008, 09:40 AM
  Quote Post

Posts: 264
Thanks: 1

In reply to: MrGreedy1 on Monday 18/02/08 01:27pm

SBS in a trading indication of why and no leakage by look at market depth. It is either a placement (about due but painful at these low values) or maybe Barrick have decided to buy this minnow so they can get on with developing Tusker without free carrying SBS to a point where it will be obvious that SBS is seriously undervalued and they will have to pat heaps more to get hold of it...? A very similar outcome to the Asmara project where Sunridge was able to offer shares in exchange for the resource...shares that become more and more worthless after each new placement...


65 Pages (Click to Jump) V   1 2 3 4 > » 

Back To Top Of Page
Reply to this topic

You agree through the use of ShareCafe, that you understand and accept the TERMS OF USE.