Back

Latest Forum Topics / Alita Resources    Last:0.078 --

Post Reply

alliance mineral resources move up Post Reply Rate topic
RedEye1811 Master	04-May-2017 20:36        RedEye1811 About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Combined   Mood:
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Yes...I too would not be surprised if shortists start to put up a wall at 40c - 42c....let us see if punches through it tomorrow...a nice gap up would be nice to get over 40c barrier...then it can plateau there and be holding till FS out and other reports... warren_mighty      ( Date: 04-May-2017 20:01) Posted: gut feeling is shortist will come back at 40/42 range of strong resistance Steady28      ( Date: 04-May-2017 19:37) Posted: Surprised to see short selling of 1.56m shares at value of 555k today... not sure what's their intent...
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
EmmGru Veteran	04-May-2017 20:14        EmmGru About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Actually its positive tat TAW haven' t spent all the required monies yet. Feasibility report etc not finalised, if they spent the money already will risk cost overrun. Easy to spend money, make sure money spent is productive is more impt. RedEye1811      ( Date: 04-May-2017 19:30) Posted: Bro, I hear you and definitely not dismissing it. For this to work it takes two hands to clap, and all parties need to work together. TAW needs AMAL and AMAL needs TAW. Realistically the JV should be finalized. AMAL' s disclosure just makes it clear that investors cannot as yet sign off thinking JV all done and dusted. I do not think much problem TAW getting the A$2.5 mill spent on top of what spent already. But AMAL just making clear where everything stands so as investors it clear.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
jack2906 Veteran	04-May-2017 20:12        jack2906 About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	these consider small vol short... shortist might be already covered... Steady28      ( Date: 04-May-2017 19:37) Posted: Surprised to see short selling of 1.56m shares at value of 555k today... not sure what's their intent...
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
EmmGru Veteran	04-May-2017 20:08        EmmGru About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Tawana also closed 4% higher today at 25 cents
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
warren_mighty Member	04-May-2017 20:01        warren_mighty About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	gut feeling is shortist will come back at 40/42 range of strong resistance Steady28      ( Date: 04-May-2017 19:37) Posted: Surprised to see short selling of 1.56m shares at value of 555k today... not sure what's their intent...
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Steady28 Senior	04-May-2017 19:37        Steady28 About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Flexible   Mood: Yells: "huat ah"
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Surprised to see short selling of 1.56m shares at value of 555k today... not sure what's their intent...
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
RedEye1811 Master	04-May-2017 19:30        RedEye1811 About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Combined   Mood:
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Bro, I hear you and definitely not dismissing it. For this to work it takes two hands to clap, and all parties need to work together. TAW needs AMAL and AMAL needs TAW. Realistically the JV should be finalized. AMAL' s disclosure just makes it clear that investors cannot as yet sign off thinking JV all done and dusted. I do not think much problem TAW getting the A$2.5 mill spent on top of what spent already. But AMAL just making clear where everything stands so as investors it clear.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
risktaker Supreme	04-May-2017 19:17        risktaker About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Flexible   Mood: Yells: "Posts are opinions. Do not take it as investment advise "
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	I will post my comment again... busy atm ..... drinkinh session risktaker      ( Date: 04-May-2017 19:16) Posted: Bro like i previously say that alliance need to depend on tawana as one of the condition for the offtake agreement to take effect is TAW need to have 50% interest.... in the lithium resources... so better pray Taw quickly sent another AUD 2.5m to get 50% lithium of lithium interest.... Then 1) RedEye1811      ( Date: 04-May-2017 17:53) Posted: Bro. Following on from your post. IMHO - and this my opinion and happy to hear other views - on reading the announcement multiple times, I felt they were seeking to be as complete as possible, sought to be factual, provided a number of key points, and whilst I may not state like you that AMAL is ' pissed off' I think they were quietly standing their foot to indicate " who" is the one with the mine (not certain phrased that well). Some points: 1. On the offtake agreement they did provide additional information that is valuable. For example, more clarity on when the agreement kicks in, the penalties on if delivery delayed or if acceptance delayed, more specifics on the installments and so forth. Such disclosures provide further key pieces to the mosiac that helps to judge what AMAL is facing and hurdles to be overcome that can be used in potentially estimating revenue for 2018 as an example. 2. Comment regarding Burwill announcement page 2. AMAL were quite explicit that the production numbers announced by Burwill were not from AMAL. From this it is clear one should not simply take the Burwill announcement and automatically think that they will produce ONLY 200,000 MT during first few years. Rather, that likely what Burwill will take. AMAL/TAW therefore can produce more if the capacity there. As stated in announcement " Burwill has first right of refusal on excess production" . So if they produce more than the amount Burwill stated AMAL/TAW could sell it to another party at a higher/lower price. Again, this information for developing better revenue projections. For example, we need not assume only 200,000 MT. 3. The statement of production cost is nice as least it backs up Canaccord estimate and can provide a base for modelling. 4. ST Article Point 1. Perhaps the delay in this announcement was that they hoped to stitch up a deal with Mitsubishi. But they least clear the old agreement lapsed and they trying to sign a new one. Gives a clear picture what AMAL needs to do, and where looking. 5. As your last point noted, it nice to get a clearer statement on their estimated cost of future capital costs, how much of that in bag, and how remainder will be split. This helps to give a concise timeline on how money going to spent and when. Message appears to be TAW through Lithco  must  spend the money it got from capital raising and prepayment from Burwill first in addition to the prepayment to AMAL. So they being quite clear that this part is very much in ballpark of TAW. Only when that in place and JV concrete will the 50/50 sharing of remaining requirements kick in. So looks like AMAL is not going to be burning their money or needing to raise capital till late in piece when much closer to up and running. Perhaps this can give comfort to people. 6. BT article Point 3. This a point I tend to concur AMAL not precisely happy. Felt like they sending a shot over the bows of TAW. AMAL makes it clear it professionals appointed was by TAW and it was expected in April. AMAL makes it explicit that report not yet received so feels like they putting pressure on TAW saying " Hey, you appointed the guys so tell them to buck up" . But they do soften the remark by saying that despite not having received the report they confident to move on with increasing number drills. Finally I felt the announcement makes it quite explicit that the mine, rights and so forth are clearly belonging to AMAL. It may have seemed from the rushed announcement by Burwill and subsequently by TAW that they running the show. IMHO I felt this announcement makes it clear that before TAW gets into the game they need to fufill requirements. For example in one of the early paragraphs AMAL makes it clear TAW does  NOT  yet have 50% right etc. And AMAL states clearly A$5 million spent when A$7.5 million needs to be commited. So TAW as yet cannot count the chickens in the hen house as they still need to meet requirements. AMAL may have felt other announcements were vague and some may conclude the JV is in place, TAW has the rights etc etc. But AMAL makes it quite explicit this not the case and requirements must be met, and people need to consider that when judging AMAL etc.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
risktaker Supreme	04-May-2017 19:16        risktaker About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Flexible   Mood: Yells: "Posts are opinions. Do not take it as investment advise "
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Bro like i previously say that alliance need to depend on tawana as one of the condition for the offtake agreement to take effect is TAW need to have 50% interest.... in the lithium resources... so better pray Taw quickly sent another AUD 2.5m to get 50% lithium of lithium interest.... Then 1) RedEye1811      ( Date: 04-May-2017 17:53) Posted: Bro. Following on from your post. IMHO - and this my opinion and happy to hear other views - on reading the announcement multiple times, I felt they were seeking to be as complete as possible, sought to be factual, provided a number of key points, and whilst I may not state like you that AMAL is ' pissed off' I think they were quietly standing their foot to indicate " who" is the one with the mine (not certain phrased that well). Some points: 1. On the offtake agreement they did provide additional information that is valuable. For example, more clarity on when the agreement kicks in, the penalties on if delivery delayed or if acceptance delayed, more specifics on the installments and so forth. Such disclosures provide further key pieces to the mosiac that helps to judge what AMAL is facing and hurdles to be overcome that can be used in potentially estimating revenue for 2018 as an example. 2. Comment regarding Burwill announcement page 2. AMAL were quite explicit that the production numbers announced by Burwill were not from AMAL. From this it is clear one should not simply take the Burwill announcement and automatically think that they will produce ONLY 200,000 MT during first few years. Rather, that likely what Burwill will take. AMAL/TAW therefore can produce more if the capacity there. As stated in announcement " Burwill has first right of refusal on excess production" . So if they produce more than the amount Burwill stated AMAL/TAW could sell it to another party at a higher/lower price. Again, this information for developing better revenue projections. For example, we need not assume only 200,000 MT. 3. The statement of production cost is nice as least it backs up Canaccord estimate and can provide a base for modelling. 4. ST Article Point 1. Perhaps the delay in this announcement was that they hoped to stitch up a deal with Mitsubishi. But they least clear the old agreement lapsed and they trying to sign a new one. Gives a clear picture what AMAL needs to do, and where looking. 5. As your last point noted, it nice to get a clearer statement on their estimated cost of future capital costs, how much of that in bag, and how remainder will be split. This helps to give a concise timeline on how money going to spent and when. Message appears to be TAW through Lithco  must  spend the money it got from capital raising and prepayment from Burwill first in addition to the prepayment to AMAL. So they being quite clear that this part is very much in ballpark of TAW. Only when that in place and JV concrete will the 50/50 sharing of remaining requirements kick in. So looks like AMAL is not going to be burning their money or needing to raise capital till late in piece when much closer to up and running. Perhaps this can give comfort to people. 6. BT article Point 3. This a point I tend to concur AMAL not precisely happy. Felt like they sending a shot over the bows of TAW. AMAL makes it clear it professionals appointed was by TAW and it was expected in April. AMAL makes it explicit that report not yet received so feels like they putting pressure on TAW saying " Hey, you appointed the guys so tell them to buck up" . But they do soften the remark by saying that despite not having received the report they confident to move on with increasing number drills. Finally I felt the announcement makes it quite explicit that the mine, rights and so forth are clearly belonging to AMAL. It may have seemed from the rushed announcement by Burwill and subsequently by TAW that they running the show. IMHO I felt this announcement makes it clear that before TAW gets into the game they need to fufill requirements. For example in one of the early paragraphs AMAL makes it clear TAW does  NOT  yet have 50% right etc. And AMAL states clearly A$5 million spent when A$7.5 million needs to be commited. So TAW as yet cannot count the chickens in the hen house as they still need to meet requirements. AMAL may have felt other announcements were vague and some may conclude the JV is in place, TAW has the rights etc etc. But AMAL makes it quite explicit this not the case and requirements must be met, and people need to consider that when judging AMAL etc. amlithiumpower      ( Date: 04-May-2017 15:25) Posted: Let' s digest the announcements bits by bits. ' In the event of repayment of the advanced payments received from Burwill, the Company may in its discretion use its internal resources or raise additional funds, via debt or equity funding, to repay the prepayment where necessary.' Cool. Maybe AM is pissed off how they released the news. Ha... totally in control. said Tawana only spent A$5m not yet earn 50% lithium rights. if to repay, AM can use debt or equity financing when necessary. ' The Board wishes to further clarify that the contents of the Burwill Announcement and any subsequent announcements made by Burwill regarding the Agreement are/will not be subjected to review by the Company and the contents, projections and assumptions contained in the Burwill Announcement, as the case may be, solely reflect the views of Burwill and the Company assumes no responsibility for the same.' Seriously, I think AM quite pissed off with Burwill. Anyhow just blow the figures without tallying with Tawana/AM. ' To the best of his personal knowledge and belief, Mr Tjandra Pramoko, the CEO of AMAL, estimates that the average cost of production of lithium in Australia is approximately A$400 to A$500 per tonne, and that the future capital costs for the Bald Hill Project are approximately A$50 million.' Ok guys, no need to guess and calculate, CEO has spoken. ' Any amounts in excess of the A$40 million secured, which the Company estimates to be A$10 million, will be funded on 50/50 basis between Lithco and AMA based on the terms of the Farm-in Agreement and Joint Venture Agreement with Lithco, which have previously been announced on 18 April 2017. For avoidance of doubt, the 50/50 sharing between Lithco and AMA in relation to the funding of the balance capital expenditure will only come into effect on the commencement of the Bald Hill Joint Venture Agreement.' Oh... There' s still a A$10m shortfall which will be a 50/50 basis with Tawana, funding wil come only after commencement of Blad Hil JV agreement. so A$5m raising required, debt or equity? rights or private placement? Any Ideas?
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Atom99 Master	04-May-2017 18:56        Atom99 About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Fundamental   Mood: Yells: "Once you hv eliminated the impossible,whatever remains TRUTH"
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	" Oh... There' s still a A$10m shortfall which will be a 50/50 basis with Tawana, funding wil come only after commencement of Blad Hil JV agreement. so A$5m raising required, debt or equity? rights or private placement? Any Ideas?" IMO,they will be  many  investors queueing up at the gate." Danoxious      ( Date: 04-May-2017 18:32) Posted: Excellent analysis. Learning a lot from this forum. Thanks a lot guys !     RedEye1811      ( Date: 04-May-2017 17:53) Posted: Bro. Following on from your post. IMHO - and this my opinion and happy to hear other views - on reading the announcement multiple times, I felt they were seeking to be as complete as possible, sought to be factual, provided a number of key points, and whilst I may not state like you that AMAL is ' pissed off' I think they were quietly standing their foot to indicate " who" is the one with the mine (not certain phrased that well). Some points: 1. On the offtake agreement they did provide additional information that is valuable. For example, more clarity on when the agreement kicks in, the penalties on if delivery delayed or if acceptance delayed, more specifics on the installments and so forth. Such disclosures provide further key pieces to the mosiac that helps to judge what AMAL is facing and hurdles to be overcome that can be used in potentially estimating revenue for 2018 as an example. 2. Comment regarding Burwill announcement page 2. AMAL were quite explicit that the production numbers announced by Burwill were not from AMAL. From this it is clear one should not simply take the Burwill announcement and automatically think that they will produce ONLY 200,000 MT during first few years. Rather, that likely what Burwill will take. AMAL/TAW therefore can produce more if the capacity there. As stated in announcement " Burwill has first right of refusal on excess production" . So if they produce more than the amount Burwill stated AMAL/TAW could sell it to another party at a higher/lower price. Again, this information for developing better revenue projections. For example, we need not assume only 200,000 MT. 3. The statement of production cost is nice as least it backs up Canaccord estimate and can provide a base for modelling. 4. ST Article Point 1. Perhaps the delay in this announcement was that they hoped to stitch up a deal with Mitsubishi. But they least clear the old agreement lapsed and they trying to sign a new one. Gives a clear picture what AMAL needs to do, and where looking. 5. As your last point noted, it nice to get a clearer statement on their estimated cost of future capital costs, how much of that in bag, and how remainder will be split. This helps to give a concise timeline on how money going to spent and when. Message appears to be TAW through Lithco  must  spend the money it got from capital raising and prepayment from Burwill first in addition to the prepayment to AMAL. So they being quite clear that this part is very much in ballpark of TAW. Only when that in place and JV concrete will the 50/50 sharing of remaining requirements kick in. So looks like AMAL is not going to be burning their money or needing to raise capital till late in piece when much closer to up and running. Perhaps this can give comfort to people. 6. BT article Point 3. This a point I tend to concur AMAL not precisely happy. Felt like they sending a shot over the bows of TAW. AMAL makes it clear it professionals appointed was by TAW and it was expected in April. AMAL makes it explicit that report not yet received so feels like they putting pressure on TAW saying " Hey, you appointed the guys so tell them to buck up" . But they do soften the remark by saying that despite not having received the report they confident to move on with increasing number drills. Finally I felt the announcement makes it quite explicit that the mine, rights and so forth are clearly belonging to AMAL. It may have seemed from the rushed announcement by Burwill and subsequently by TAW that they running the show. IMHO I felt this announcement makes it clear that before TAW gets into the game they need to fufill requirements. For example in one of the early paragraphs AMAL makes it clear TAW does  NOT  yet have 50% right etc. And AMAL states clearly A$5 million spent when A$7.5 million needs to be commited. So TAW as yet cannot count the chickens in the hen house as they still need to meet requirements. AMAL may have felt other announcements were vague and some may conclude the JV is in place, TAW has the rights etc etc. But AMAL makes it quite explicit this not the case and requirements must be met, and people need to consider that when judging AMAL etc.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
Danoxious Member	04-May-2017 18:32        Danoxious About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Excellent analysis. Learning a lot from this forum. Thanks a lot guys !     RedEye1811      ( Date: 04-May-2017 17:53) Posted: Bro. Following on from your post. IMHO - and this my opinion and happy to hear other views - on reading the announcement multiple times, I felt they were seeking to be as complete as possible, sought to be factual, provided a number of key points, and whilst I may not state like you that AMAL is ' pissed off' I think they were quietly standing their foot to indicate " who" is the one with the mine (not certain phrased that well). Some points: 1. On the offtake agreement they did provide additional information that is valuable. For example, more clarity on when the agreement kicks in, the penalties on if delivery delayed or if acceptance delayed, more specifics on the installments and so forth. Such disclosures provide further key pieces to the mosiac that helps to judge what AMAL is facing and hurdles to be overcome that can be used in potentially estimating revenue for 2018 as an example. 2. Comment regarding Burwill announcement page 2. AMAL were quite explicit that the production numbers announced by Burwill were not from AMAL. From this it is clear one should not simply take the Burwill announcement and automatically think that they will produce ONLY 200,000 MT during first few years. Rather, that likely what Burwill will take. AMAL/TAW therefore can produce more if the capacity there. As stated in announcement " Burwill has first right of refusal on excess production" . So if they produce more than the amount Burwill stated AMAL/TAW could sell it to another party at a higher/lower price. Again, this information for developing better revenue projections. For example, we need not assume only 200,000 MT. 3. The statement of production cost is nice as least it backs up Canaccord estimate and can provide a base for modelling. 4. ST Article Point 1. Perhaps the delay in this announcement was that they hoped to stitch up a deal with Mitsubishi. But they least clear the old agreement lapsed and they trying to sign a new one. Gives a clear picture what AMAL needs to do, and where looking. 5. As your last point noted, it nice to get a clearer statement on their estimated cost of future capital costs, how much of that in bag, and how remainder will be split. This helps to give a concise timeline on how money going to spent and when. Message appears to be TAW through Lithco  must  spend the money it got from capital raising and prepayment from Burwill first in addition to the prepayment to AMAL. So they being quite clear that this part is very much in ballpark of TAW. Only when that in place and JV concrete will the 50/50 sharing of remaining requirements kick in. So looks like AMAL is not going to be burning their money or needing to raise capital till late in piece when much closer to up and running. Perhaps this can give comfort to people. 6. BT article Point 3. This a point I tend to concur AMAL not precisely happy. Felt like they sending a shot over the bows of TAW. AMAL makes it clear it professionals appointed was by TAW and it was expected in April. AMAL makes it explicit that report not yet received so feels like they putting pressure on TAW saying " Hey, you appointed the guys so tell them to buck up" . But they do soften the remark by saying that despite not having received the report they confident to move on with increasing number drills. Finally I felt the announcement makes it quite explicit that the mine, rights and so forth are clearly belonging to AMAL. It may have seemed from the rushed announcement by Burwill and subsequently by TAW that they running the show. IMHO I felt this announcement makes it clear that before TAW gets into the game they need to fufill requirements. For example in one of the early paragraphs AMAL makes it clear TAW does  NOT  yet have 50% right etc. And AMAL states clearly A$5 million spent when A$7.5 million needs to be commited. So TAW as yet cannot count the chickens in the hen house as they still need to meet requirements. AMAL may have felt other announcements were vague and some may conclude the JV is in place, TAW has the rights etc etc. But AMAL makes it quite explicit this not the case and requirements must be met, and people need to consider that when judging AMAL etc. amlithiumpower      ( Date: 04-May-2017 15:25) Posted: Let' s digest the announcements bits by bits. ' In the event of repayment of the advanced payments received from Burwill, the Company may in its discretion use its internal resources or raise additional funds, via debt or equity funding, to repay the prepayment where necessary.' Cool. Maybe AM is pissed off how they released the news. Ha... totally in control. said Tawana only spent A$5m not yet earn 50% lithium rights. if to repay, AM can use debt or equity financing when necessary. ' The Board wishes to further clarify that the contents of the Burwill Announcement and any subsequent announcements made by Burwill regarding the Agreement are/will not be subjected to review by the Company and the contents, projections and assumptions contained in the Burwill Announcement, as the case may be, solely reflect the views of Burwill and the Company assumes no responsibility for the same.' Seriously, I think AM quite pissed off with Burwill. Anyhow just blow the figures without tallying with Tawana/AM. ' To the best of his personal knowledge and belief, Mr Tjandra Pramoko, the CEO of AMAL, estimates that the average cost of production of lithium in Australia is approximately A$400 to A$500 per tonne, and that the future capital costs for the Bald Hill Project are approximately A$50 million.' Ok guys, no need to guess and calculate, CEO has spoken. ' Any amounts in excess of the A$40 million secured, which the Company estimates to be A$10 million, will be funded on 50/50 basis between Lithco and AMA based on the terms of the Farm-in Agreement and Joint Venture Agreement with Lithco, which have previously been announced on 18 April 2017. For avoidance of doubt, the 50/50 sharing between Lithco and AMA in relation to the funding of the balance capital expenditure will only come into effect on the commencement of the Bald Hill Joint Venture Agreement.' Oh... There' s still a A$10m shortfall which will be a 50/50 basis with Tawana, funding wil come only after commencement of Blad Hil JV agreement. so A$5m raising required, debt or equity? rights or private placement? Any Ideas?
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
didisiaosiao Master	04-May-2017 18:31        didisiaosiao About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Great...... If positive feasibility study or offtake result from mitsubishi lagi ho!!!!!
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
RedEye1811 Master	04-May-2017 18:18        RedEye1811 About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Combined   Mood:
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Heck...my last post should finish " And the AMAL announcement I felt gives greater clarity on risks to which party. So that at least a plus. Perhaps announcement not all we wished but personally feel more value than a negative."
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
RedEye1811 Master	04-May-2017 18:15        RedEye1811 About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Combined   Mood:
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	I can only speak for myself Bro but as trying to determine a TP for AMAL long term then personally I found the clarifications of AMAL announcement helpful...do not get me wrong, I not saying it clears everything and it can give a precise TP. However, for example, AMAL' s annoucement does make it clear that their production target can indeed be in excess of 100,000 MT in Year 1 and Year 2 (for simplicity assuming Burwill take 100,000 MT each year). AMAL may indeed produce more which as they point out may be taken up by Burwill or could be sold to a 3rd party for higher/lower. So least now can build a more comprehensive model and adjust the variables to give a clearer range etc. When the analysts come up with a TP they do not simply use one set of predictions. They should (at least) ballpark grid using different approaches (e.g., multiples, relative values, DCF, Monte Carlo analysis). With clarity from AMAL can help model our own grid more clearly so as to give a better understanding of a TP we may come up with. And the AMAL announcement I felt gives b  timothylim890      ( Date: 04-May-2017 17:58) Posted: Very good points bro nicely done. Some key items AMAL addressed well were 1) Resource estimate not in their ballpark 2) TAW/Lithco have not earned JV. The above helps to clear some doubts that may be swimming around regarding who' s responsible/vulnerable to which risks. RedEye1811      ( Date: 04-May-2017 17:53) Posted: Bro. Following on from your post. IMHO - and this my opinion and happy to hear other views - on reading the announcement multiple times, I felt they were seeking to be as complete as possible, sought to be factual, provided a number of key points, and whilst I may not state like you that AMAL is ' pissed off' I think they were quietly standing their foot to indicate " who" is the one with the mine (not certain phrased that well). Some points: 1. On the offtake agreement they did provide additional information that is valuable. For example, more clarity on when the agreement kicks in, the penalties on if delivery delayed or if acceptance delayed, more specifics on the installments and so forth. Such disclosures provide further key pieces to the mosiac that helps to judge what AMAL is facing and hurdles to be overcome that can be used in potentially estimating revenue for 2018 as an example. 2. Comment regarding Burwill announcement page 2. AMAL were quite explicit that the production numbers announced by Burwill were not from AMAL. From this it is clear one should not simply take the Burwill announcement and automatically think that they will produce ONLY 200,000 MT during first few years. Rather, that likely what Burwill will take. AMAL/TAW therefore can produce more if the capacity there. As stated in announcement " Burwill has first right of refusal on excess production" . So if they produce more than the amount Burwill stated AMAL/TAW could sell it to another party at a higher/lower price. Again, this information for developing better revenue projections. For example, we need not assume only 200,000 MT. 3. The statement of production cost is nice as least it backs up Canaccord estimate and can provide a base for modelling. 4. ST Article Point 1. Perhaps the delay in this announcement was that they hoped to stitch up a deal with Mitsubishi. But they least clear the old agreement lapsed and they trying to sign a new one. Gives a clear picture what AMAL needs to do, and where looking. 5. As your last point noted, it nice to get a clearer statement on their estimated cost of future capital costs, how much of that in bag, and how remainder will be split. This helps to give a concise timeline on how money going to spent and when. Message appears to be TAW through Lithco  must  spend the money it got from capital raising and prepayment from Burwill first in addition to the prepayment to AMAL. So they being quite clear that this part is very much in ballpark of TAW. Only when that in place and JV concrete will the 50/50 sharing of remaining requirements kick in. So looks like AMAL is not going to be burning their money or needing to raise capital till late in piece when much closer to up and running. Perhaps this can give comfort to people. 6. BT article Point 3. This a point I tend to concur AMAL not precisely happy. Felt like they sending a shot over the bows of TAW. AMAL makes it clear it professionals appointed was by TAW and it was expected in April. AMAL makes it explicit that report not yet received so feels like they putting pressure on TAW saying " Hey, you appointed the guys so tell them to buck up" . But they do soften the remark by saying that despite not having received the report they confident to move on with increasing number drills. Finally I felt the announcement makes it quite explicit that the mine, rights and so forth are clearly belonging to AMAL. It may have seemed from the rushed announcement by Burwill and subsequently by TAW that they running the show. IMHO I felt this announcement makes it clear that before TAW gets into the game they need to fufill requirements. For example in one of the early paragraphs AMAL makes it clear TAW does  NOT  yet have 50% right etc. And AMAL states clearly A$5 million spent when A$7.5 million needs to be commited. So TAW as yet cannot count the chickens in the hen house as they still need to meet requirements. AMAL may have felt other announcements were vague and some may conclude the JV is in place, TAW has the rights etc etc. But AMAL makes it quite explicit this not the case and requirements must be met, and people need to consider that when judging AMAL etc.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
EmmGru Veteran	04-May-2017 18:13        EmmGru About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	It is very tricky for AMAL to clarify for eg. the Burwill $1000 or add more details not in Tawana announcement.   Definitely need to talk to tis 2 listco to make sure they are ok with what AMAL write or they could be questioned by their own shareholders / regulators why they inaccurate or miss things out in their announcement. SGX and Prime Partners will understandably be nervy if AMAL try to announce new facts that does not tie in with Burwill / Tawana / Straits Times / Biz Times that is price sensitive. They will query and check a lot of things. So mystery solved why suspension was needed. Maybe AMAL could have done things faster but there were public holidays .... checking and rechecking things take time.... we are dealing with 3 listco here and they all have their own due diligence and sensitivities to handle.... we should be happy AMAL' s announcement looks more comprehensive and detailed of the 3. Good quality announcement    RedEye1811      ( Date: 04-May-2017 17:58) Posted: In my other post I also pick up on this paragraph. Agree. IMHO I feel AMAL is trying to clarify this and ensure facts in place. In modelling potential revenue, risks and so forth I feel that AMAL has be comprehensive and filled in some important blanks. That just my opinion. Perhaps they could have been faster at releasing, but perhaps they wished to confur with Burwill/TAW to ask more specifics on what they meant, and as they seeking to be very specific on those announcement and ST/BT articles it took longer to complete and have sponsor run through it. But prefer the clarity even if took little long. amlithiumpower      ( Date: 04-May-2017 17:34) Posted: In respect of the first paragraph of page 2 of Burwill&rsquo s announcement dated 20 April 2017 released on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (&ldquo Burwill Announcement&rdquo ) which states &ldquo Starting from February 2018, BCL shall, in the first two years, purchase an aggregate of at least 200,000 dry metric tonnes of high-grade lithium concentrate at a fixed price, worthing of approximately USD200,000,000.&rdquo , the Board wishes to clarify that the Company was not privy to its calculation of the said figure. Notwithstanding so, the Company thinks that the said figure may have taken into account, inter alia, the aggregate quantities of deliveries of Li2O concentrate provided in the Agreement according to the indicative schedule of delivery of Li2O by both the Company and Tawana through Lithco, and the sale price of the Li2O. In this regard, the Agreement has also provided for pricing adjustment for late delivery. The Board wishes to further clarify that the contents of the Burwill Announcement and any subsequent announcements made by Burwill regarding the Agreement are/will not be subjected to review by the Company and the contents, projections and assumptions contained in the Burwill Announcement, as the case may be, solely reflect the views of Burwill and the Company assumes no responsibility for the same. Ha... AM also not happy with Burwill announcement. just a marketing statement of    USD200,000,000. Ha... did not check with Tawana and AM on the facts. Luckily AM helps to clean their asses by saying  said figure may have taken into account, inter alia, the aggregate quantities of deliveries of Li2O concentrate provided.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
RedEye1811 Master	04-May-2017 17:58        RedEye1811 About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Combined   Mood:
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	In my other post I also pick up on this paragraph. Agree. IMHO I feel AMAL is trying to clarify this and ensure facts in place. In modelling potential revenue, risks and so forth I feel that AMAL has be comprehensive and filled in some important blanks. That just my opinion. Perhaps they could have been faster at releasing, but perhaps they wished to confur with Burwill/TAW to ask more specifics on what they meant, and as they seeking to be very specific on those announcement and ST/BT articles it took longer to complete and have sponsor run through it. But prefer the clarity even if took little long. amlithiumpower      ( Date: 04-May-2017 17:34) Posted: In respect of the first paragraph of page 2 of Burwill&rsquo s announcement dated 20 April 2017 released on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (&ldquo Burwill Announcement&rdquo ) which states &ldquo Starting from February 2018, BCL shall, in the first two years, purchase an aggregate of at least 200,000 dry metric tonnes of high-grade lithium concentrate at a fixed price, worthing of approximately USD200,000,000.&rdquo , the Board wishes to clarify that the Company was not privy to its calculation of the said figure. Notwithstanding so, the Company thinks that the said figure may have taken into account, inter alia, the aggregate quantities of deliveries of Li2O concentrate provided in the Agreement according to the indicative schedule of delivery of Li2O by both the Company and Tawana through Lithco, and the sale price of the Li2O. In this regard, the Agreement has also provided for pricing adjustment for late delivery. The Board wishes to further clarify that the contents of the Burwill Announcement and any subsequent announcements made by Burwill regarding the Agreement are/will not be subjected to review by the Company and the contents, projections and assumptions contained in the Burwill Announcement, as the case may be, solely reflect the views of Burwill and the Company assumes no responsibility for the same. Ha... AM also not happy with Burwill announcement. just a marketing statement of    USD200,000,000. Ha... did not check with Tawana and AM on the facts. Luckily AM helps to clean their asses by saying  said figure may have taken into account, inter alia, the aggregate quantities of deliveries of Li2O concentrate provided. RedEye1811      ( Date: 04-May-2017 15:34) Posted: Bro. Have similar thoughts. But will wait till end of trading day to reply. Brain only big enough to focus on trading...
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
timothylim890 Veteran	04-May-2017 17:58        timothylim890 About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Fundamental
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Very good points bro nicely done. Some key items AMAL addressed well were 1) Resource estimate not in their ballpark 2) TAW/Lithco have not earned JV. The above helps to clear some doubts that may be swimming around regarding who' s responsible/vulnerable to which risks. RedEye1811      ( Date: 04-May-2017 17:53) Posted: Bro. Following on from your post. IMHO - and this my opinion and happy to hear other views - on reading the announcement multiple times, I felt they were seeking to be as complete as possible, sought to be factual, provided a number of key points, and whilst I may not state like you that AMAL is ' pissed off' I think they were quietly standing their foot to indicate " who" is the one with the mine (not certain phrased that well). Some points: 1. On the offtake agreement they did provide additional information that is valuable. For example, more clarity on when the agreement kicks in, the penalties on if delivery delayed or if acceptance delayed, more specifics on the installments and so forth. Such disclosures provide further key pieces to the mosiac that helps to judge what AMAL is facing and hurdles to be overcome that can be used in potentially estimating revenue for 2018 as an example. 2. Comment regarding Burwill announcement page 2. AMAL were quite explicit that the production numbers announced by Burwill were not from AMAL. From this it is clear one should not simply take the Burwill announcement and automatically think that they will produce ONLY 200,000 MT during first few years. Rather, that likely what Burwill will take. AMAL/TAW therefore can produce more if the capacity there. As stated in announcement " Burwill has first right of refusal on excess production" . So if they produce more than the amount Burwill stated AMAL/TAW could sell it to another party at a higher/lower price. Again, this information for developing better revenue projections. For example, we need not assume only 200,000 MT. 3. The statement of production cost is nice as least it backs up Canaccord estimate and can provide a base for modelling. 4. ST Article Point 1. Perhaps the delay in this announcement was that they hoped to stitch up a deal with Mitsubishi. But they least clear the old agreement lapsed and they trying to sign a new one. Gives a clear picture what AMAL needs to do, and where looking. 5. As your last point noted, it nice to get a clearer statement on their estimated cost of future capital costs, how much of that in bag, and how remainder will be split. This helps to give a concise timeline on how money going to spent and when. Message appears to be TAW through Lithco  must  spend the money it got from capital raising and prepayment from Burwill first in addition to the prepayment to AMAL. So they being quite clear that this part is very much in ballpark of TAW. Only when that in place and JV concrete will the 50/50 sharing of remaining requirements kick in. So looks like AMAL is not going to be burning their money or needing to raise capital till late in piece when much closer to up and running. Perhaps this can give comfort to people. 6. BT article Point 3. This a point I tend to concur AMAL not precisely happy. Felt like they sending a shot over the bows of TAW. AMAL makes it clear it professionals appointed was by TAW and it was expected in April. AMAL makes it explicit that report not yet received so feels like they putting pressure on TAW saying " Hey, you appointed the guys so tell them to buck up" . But they do soften the remark by saying that despite not having received the report they confident to move on with increasing number drills. Finally I felt the announcement makes it quite explicit that the mine, rights and so forth are clearly belonging to AMAL. It may have seemed from the rushed announcement by Burwill and subsequently by TAW that they running the show. IMHO I felt this announcement makes it clear that before TAW gets into the game they need to fufill requirements. For example in one of the early paragraphs AMAL makes it clear TAW does  NOT  yet have 50% right etc. And AMAL states clearly A$5 million spent when A$7.5 million needs to be commited. So TAW as yet cannot count the chickens in the hen house as they still need to meet requirements. AMAL may have felt other announcements were vague and some may conclude the JV is in place, TAW has the rights etc etc. But AMAL makes it quite explicit this not the case and requirements must be met, and people need to consider that when judging AMAL etc. amlithiumpower      ( Date: 04-May-2017 15:25) Posted: Let' s digest the announcements bits by bits. ' In the event of repayment of the advanced payments received from Burwill, the Company may in its discretion use its internal resources or raise additional funds, via debt or equity funding, to repay the prepayment where necessary.' Cool. Maybe AM is pissed off how they released the news. Ha... totally in control. said Tawana only spent A$5m not yet earn 50% lithium rights. if to repay, AM can use debt or equity financing when necessary. ' The Board wishes to further clarify that the contents of the Burwill Announcement and any subsequent announcements made by Burwill regarding the Agreement are/will not be subjected to review by the Company and the contents, projections and assumptions contained in the Burwill Announcement, as the case may be, solely reflect the views of Burwill and the Company assumes no responsibility for the same.' Seriously, I think AM quite pissed off with Burwill. Anyhow just blow the figures without tallying with Tawana/AM. ' To the best of his personal knowledge and belief, Mr Tjandra Pramoko, the CEO of AMAL, estimates that the average cost of production of lithium in Australia is approximately A$400 to A$500 per tonne, and that the future capital costs for the Bald Hill Project are approximately A$50 million.' Ok guys, no need to guess and calculate, CEO has spoken. ' Any amounts in excess of the A$40 million secured, which the Company estimates to be A$10 million, will be funded on 50/50 basis between Lithco and AMA based on the terms of the Farm-in Agreement and Joint Venture Agreement with Lithco, which have previously been announced on 18 April 2017. For avoidance of doubt, the 50/50 sharing between Lithco and AMA in relation to the funding of the balance capital expenditure will only come into effect on the commencement of the Bald Hill Joint Venture Agreement.' Oh... There' s still a A$10m shortfall which will be a 50/50 basis with Tawana, funding wil come only after commencement of Blad Hil JV agreement. so A$5m raising required, debt or equity? rights or private placement? Any Ideas?
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
RedEye1811 Master	04-May-2017 17:53        RedEye1811 About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Combined   Mood:
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Bro. Following on from your post. IMHO - and this my opinion and happy to hear other views - on reading the announcement multiple times, I felt they were seeking to be as complete as possible, sought to be factual, provided a number of key points, and whilst I may not state like you that AMAL is ' pissed off' I think they were quietly standing their foot to indicate " who" is the one with the mine (not certain phrased that well). Some points: 1. On the offtake agreement they did provide additional information that is valuable. For example, more clarity on when the agreement kicks in, the penalties on if delivery delayed or if acceptance delayed, more specifics on the installments and so forth. Such disclosures provide further key pieces to the mosiac that helps to judge what AMAL is facing and hurdles to be overcome that can be used in potentially estimating revenue for 2018 as an example. 2. Comment regarding Burwill announcement page 2. AMAL were quite explicit that the production numbers announced by Burwill were not from AMAL. From this it is clear one should not simply take the Burwill announcement and automatically think that they will produce ONLY 200,000 MT during first few years. Rather, that likely what Burwill will take. AMAL/TAW therefore can produce more if the capacity there. As stated in announcement " Burwill has first right of refusal on excess production" . So if they produce more than the amount Burwill stated AMAL/TAW could sell it to another party at a higher/lower price. Again, this information for developing better revenue projections. For example, we need not assume only 200,000 MT. 3. The statement of production cost is nice as least it backs up Canaccord estimate and can provide a base for modelling. 4. ST Article Point 1. Perhaps the delay in this announcement was that they hoped to stitch up a deal with Mitsubishi. But they least clear the old agreement lapsed and they trying to sign a new one. Gives a clear picture what AMAL needs to do, and where looking. 5. As your last point noted, it nice to get a clearer statement on their estimated cost of future capital costs, how much of that in bag, and how remainder will be split. This helps to give a concise timeline on how money going to spent and when. Message appears to be TAW through Lithco  must  spend the money it got from capital raising and prepayment from Burwill first in addition to the prepayment to AMAL. So they being quite clear that this part is very much in ballpark of TAW. Only when that in place and JV concrete will the 50/50 sharing of remaining requirements kick in. So looks like AMAL is not going to be burning their money or needing to raise capital till late in piece when much closer to up and running. Perhaps this can give comfort to people. 6. BT article Point 3. This a point I tend to concur AMAL not precisely happy. Felt like they sending a shot over the bows of TAW. AMAL makes it clear it professionals appointed was by TAW and it was expected in April. AMAL makes it explicit that report not yet received so feels like they putting pressure on TAW saying " Hey, you appointed the guys so tell them to buck up" . But they do soften the remark by saying that despite not having received the report they confident to move on with increasing number drills. Finally I felt the announcement makes it quite explicit that the mine, rights and so forth are clearly belonging to AMAL. It may have seemed from the rushed announcement by Burwill and subsequently by TAW that they running the show. IMHO I felt this announcement makes it clear that before TAW gets into the game they need to fufill requirements. For example in one of the early paragraphs AMAL makes it clear TAW does  NOT  yet have 50% right etc. And AMAL states clearly A$5 million spent when A$7.5 million needs to be commited. So TAW as yet cannot count the chickens in the hen house as they still need to meet requirements. AMAL may have felt other announcements were vague and some may conclude the JV is in place, TAW has the rights etc etc. But AMAL makes it quite explicit this not the case and requirements must be met, and people need to consider that when judging AMAL etc. amlithiumpower      ( Date: 04-May-2017 15:25) Posted: Let' s digest the announcements bits by bits. ' In the event of repayment of the advanced payments received from Burwill, the Company may in its discretion use its internal resources or raise additional funds, via debt or equity funding, to repay the prepayment where necessary.' Cool. Maybe AM is pissed off how they released the news. Ha... totally in control. said Tawana only spent A$5m not yet earn 50% lithium rights. if to repay, AM can use debt or equity financing when necessary. ' The Board wishes to further clarify that the contents of the Burwill Announcement and any subsequent announcements made by Burwill regarding the Agreement are/will not be subjected to review by the Company and the contents, projections and assumptions contained in the Burwill Announcement, as the case may be, solely reflect the views of Burwill and the Company assumes no responsibility for the same.' Seriously, I think AM quite pissed off with Burwill. Anyhow just blow the figures without tallying with Tawana/AM. ' To the best of his personal knowledge and belief, Mr Tjandra Pramoko, the CEO of AMAL, estimates that the average cost of production of lithium in Australia is approximately A$400 to A$500 per tonne, and that the future capital costs for the Bald Hill Project are approximately A$50 million.' Ok guys, no need to guess and calculate, CEO has spoken. ' Any amounts in excess of the A$40 million secured, which the Company estimates to be A$10 million, will be funded on 50/50 basis between Lithco and AMA based on the terms of the Farm-in Agreement and Joint Venture Agreement with Lithco, which have previously been announced on 18 April 2017. For avoidance of doubt, the 50/50 sharing between Lithco and AMA in relation to the funding of the balance capital expenditure will only come into effect on the commencement of the Bald Hill Joint Venture Agreement.' Oh... There' s still a A$10m shortfall which will be a 50/50 basis with Tawana, funding wil come only after commencement of Blad Hil JV agreement. so A$5m raising required, debt or equity? rights or private placement? Any Ideas? EmmGru      ( Date: 04-May-2017 15:15) Posted: Yes you' re rite. Fail to pay 2nd and 3rd instalment in time.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
risktaker Supreme	04-May-2017 17:48        risktaker About Contact  Quote this Post! Style: Flexible   Mood: Yells: "Posts are opinions. Do not take it as investment advise "
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	Ocbc dbs kgi and rhb all steady....others in bed with uob kayhian... EmmGru      ( Date: 04-May-2017 17:42) Posted: it is trading house specific lah. LIke I trade on OCBC securities, never restricted and my broker never worried even thro the suspension when I had outstanding contra position. OCBC is the prudent not beggars for your business type. If they are not worried.... luanboo      ( Date: 04-May-2017 16:13) Posted: Not very true. Philips restrict even the prepaid cash account - which is beyond reasonable, if they are just worried about client ability to pay up.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me
EmmGru Veteran	04-May-2017 17:42        EmmGru About Contact  Quote this Post!
x 0   x 0  Alert Admin	it is trading house specific lah. LIke I trade on OCBC securities, never restricted and my broker never worried even thro the suspension when I had outstanding contra position. OCBC is the prudent not beggars for your business type. If they are not worried.... luanboo      ( Date: 04-May-2017 16:13) Posted: Not very true. Philips restrict even the prepaid cash account - which is beyond reasonable, if they are just worried about client ability to pay up. sheerluck      ( Date: 04-May-2017 16:07) Posted: Trading houses simply don' t want to take up any risk on buyer' s behalf.   It is not like they don' t allow you to buy.   They just want you to buy with cash and not using the credit extend to you.   Why keep harping on this point.   It is pointless.
Useful To Me  Not Useful To Me

                                                         First   < Newer   5441-5460 of 10377   Older>   Last