Home
Login Register
Alita Resources    Last:0.078   -

Alliance Mineral....The Next Lap.

 Post Reply 2401-2420 of 2510
 
Atom99
    12-Oct-2017 23:20  
Contact    Quote!


CLARIFICATION ON BUSINESS TIMES ARTICLE DATED 10 OCTOBER 2017

The Board of Directors (&ldquo Board&rdquo ) of Alliance Mineral Assets Limited (&ldquo AMAL&rdquo or the &ldquo Company&rdquo ) refers to

the Business Times article dated 10 October 2017 titled &ldquo Alliance Mineral CEO: Better terms in latest

agreement with Burwill&rdquo (&ldquo BT Article&rdquo ).

As stated in the BT Article, the Company&rsquo s Chief Executive Officer, Mr Tjandra Pramoko (&ldquo Mr Tjandra&rdquo ),

made a statement that &ldquo Alliance Mineral share price next year should rise to S$1 per share&rdquo

(&ldquo Statement&rdquo ).

The Company wishes to clarify that, Mr Tjandra was asked during the interview about his opinion on the

lithium miners in Australia which are of similar size to the Company. In his answer, Mr Tjandra quoted

several Australian lithium miners, including Galaxy Resources Ltd (&ldquo Galaxy&rdquo ), a company listed on the

Australian Securities Exchange (&ldquo ASX&rdquo ), which has a market capitalisation of about A$1.2 billion and a

current PE ratio of approximately 23 times. Mr Tjandra had subsequently compared the Company&rsquo s

current share price with Galaxy, applying the same PE ratio as Galaxy. As such, the &ldquo $1 per share&rdquo from

the Statement was due to the hypothetical peer comparison made by Mr Tjandra for the purposes of the

interview and was not intended to be a forecast.

The following factors were taken into consideration by Mr Tjandra in making the aforesaid comparison:

(a) Among others, (i) the projected production of spodumene and cost of production for the Bald Hill

Project in 2018 mentioned in the pre-feasibility study (&ldquo PFS&rdquo ) announced by Tawana Resources

NL (&ldquo Tawana&rdquo ) on 11 July 2017, (ii) the off-take price under the off-take agreement (&ldquo Off-take

Agreement&rdquo ) with Burwill Commodity Limited (&ldquo Burwill&rdquo ), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Burwill

Holdings Limited, and (iii) the potential taxes and royalty to be paid and

(b) Using the PE ratio of approximately 23 times at which Galaxy is currently trading at, on the

assumption that the Singapore market values the Company at the same rate as the Australian

market values Galaxy.

Shareholders who wish to refer to the PFS may access the same at the following link

http://spcagent.io/taw/wp-content/uploads/sites/26/2017/07/TAW-1.pdf.

The Company also wishes to make clarifications to certain information disclosed in the BT Article as

follows:-

(i) &ldquo The original agreement with Hong Kong listed Burwill stipulated a A$3 million penalty if Alliance

Mineral did not deliver the lithium within two months starting March 2018 under an offtake

agreement. Mr Tjandra said this means that in the new deal, it can deliver as late as May and not

to worry about the penalty&rdquo

Company&rsquo s Clarification:

As disclosed in page 2 of the Company&rsquo s announcement dated 4 May 2017 in relation to the Offtake

Agreement, in the event of late delivery by the Company, the price per tonne of lithium

concentrate will be decreased. Pursuant to the Off-take Agreement (as varied by the binding term

sheet dated 2 October 2017 (&ldquo Binding Term Sheet&rdquo )), should delivery scheduled for April 2018

be delayed beyond the agreed grace period stipulated in the Off-take Agreement of up to 60

days, Burwill may claim against the Company for breach of contract. The &ldquo A$3 million penalty&rdquo

mentioned by Mr Tjandra in the BT Article was based on his estimate of potential damages

arising from such breach, taking into account, inter alia, the off-take price and the potential

damages which may be suffered by Burwill (subject to mitigation).

(ii) &ldquo Burwill agreed to take lower grade 4.5 percent lithium concentrate from the previous minimum

5.5 percent concentrate&rdquo

Company&rsquo s Clarification:

As disclosed in paragraph 2.6 of the Company&rsquo s announcement dated 5 October 2017 in relation

to, inter-alia, the Binding Term Sheet, the Company may deliver 2 shipments of lithium

concentrate of a grade lower than 5.5% to Burwill should delivery be delayed.

The lower grade of 4.5 percent lithium concentrate mentioned by Mr Tjandra in the BT Article was

based on his assessment that a concentration of 4.5% will be required in order for delivery to be

economically viable to both the Company and Burwill, having regard to, inter alia, the costs of

production and freight.

(iii) &ldquo Burwill also agreed to increase the amount it will buy to between 70,000 and 75,000 tonnes in

2018, and 80,000 and 85,000 tonnes in 2019. In the previous agreement, it was 40,000 tonnes in

2018 and 60,000 tonnes in 2019&rdquo

Company&rsquo s Clarification:

As disclosed in paragraph 2.7 of the Company&rsquo s announcement dated 5 October 2017 in relation

to the Binding Term Sheet, Burwill has exercised its right to purchase all excess lithium

concentrate produced (if any) for the first 2 years.

The quantity to be purchased by Burwill of 70,000 to 75,000 tonnes for 2018 and 80,000 to

85,000 tonnes for 2019 as mentioned in the BT Article was the estimates of the total quantity,

taking into account the estimated excess, to be purchased by Burwill based on the information

found in the PFS. These figures are purely estimates and are not contractually binding on either

Burwill or the Company. Burwill is bound to purchase all excess production above 40,000 tonnes

for 2018 and 2019.

(iv) &ldquo The current price of lithium of about US$880 per tonne is the highest ever - it was around

US$400 per tonne last year&rdquo

Company&rsquo s clarification:

The price of US$880 per tonne is higher than what Mr Tjandra believes is the latest publicly

available contracted price. Mr Tjandra took reference from the contracted price announced by the

comparable ASX listed companies.

(v) &ldquo The increase in offtake means Alliance Mineral will be getting US$132 million to US$140 million,

up from S$88 million previously&rdquo

Company&rsquo s clarification:

The estimated revenue under the Off-take Agreement stated in the BT Article was made by Mr

Tjandra based on the following considerations, among others (a) the agreed minimum quantities

to be sold under the Off-take Agreement and the estimated production quantities based on the

PFS and (b) the Company being able to meet the terms of the Off-take Agreement, including but

not limited to timely delivery, grade of lithium concentrate delivered, and sale price.

By Order of the Board

Simone Suen

Executive Director

12 October 2017

 

Atom99      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 23:17) Posted:


 
 
Atom99
    12-Oct-2017 23:17  
Contact    Quote!
 
 
furnaces
    12-Oct-2017 23:01  
Contact    Quote!
Announcement out,
 

 
naocan
    12-Oct-2017 22:30  
Contact    Quote!
I think can hit $0.50.
 
 
Atom99
    12-Oct-2017 22:23  
Contact    Quote!
From tomorrow till 24 OCt 17,will  AMAL' s  SP hit 50 cents or more?  Will it be an exciting or boring period?
We will know the outcome when the time comes.
Did I missed anything?
DYOR and DYODD. Cheers to AMAL!!! 
 
 
papayaface
    12-Oct-2017 22:04  
Contact    Quote!
99.9% should be a suspension going by its track record. The CEO is hopeless. I think he' s waiting for Dow to crash. Haha Good luck 

ahhuat08      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 18:26) Posted:

Sorry shoud have been 9.01 am, lol

ahhuat08      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 18:25) Posted:

Listed firm has 72 hours to lift the trading halt.

The 72 hours deadline is tomorrow morning firday, 13th oct 2017 9.10 am, any announcement must be made by then, be it lifting of trading halt or to be suspended for more time to release the announcement


 

 
sheerluck
    12-Oct-2017 18:49  
Contact    Quote!
Very well-reasoned.

twinpower      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 18:36) Posted:

I guess all your concerns, from the FS to the ore reserve report, are all valid, and should ideally be present in a perfect scenario. However, what sets investing in shares apart from a punt in the casino is that in shares, it allows for calculated and measured risk to be taken that commensurate with the rewards that you expect. From what we have seen to date of AMAL, from the offtake agreement with burwill, to the PFS, to the relevant authorities approving all the required licences for operations to commence, then JL entering the frame, and finally burwill's recent capital injection, there is nothing to suggest that our belief in AMAL will not come into fruition. Of course alot of assumptions are made along the way, and the project might just turn out to be a scam - but what are the odds? Moreover, if there was indeed a FS and ore report that results in the resources being marked to market at fair value on the balance sheet, we would highly probably not see the share price at 33cents now, maybe double or even more. 😀

sheerluck      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 15:17) Posted:

Let us know if you managed to out more.  Tjandra quoted GR in his interview.  I had a brief look at their AR2016, it seems they do have " proven" .  It seems like Pilbara haven' t started production so might be a closer match.

JORC is a guide.  So one can argued that it is a set of " good practises" gained from past experience both good but definitely more benficial from those bad ones.  It is not prescriptive but is there for good reason.  If a particular process is redundant and AMAL/TAW skipped it, I would agree but the FS is an important step in the go/no-go decision making so skipping it to me is simply a bad decision. 

AMAL may choose to skip FS if financing is not from banks (thanks to furnaces!) since they got it from Burwill.  But still it is an essence step from a business/investment decision-making process of their own.  Also they are two steps behind " proven" since they haven' t even got " measured" in the mineral resource report.

Anyway, less than two weeks to 24 Oct but entering the WVAP period soon


 
 
twinpower
    12-Oct-2017 18:36  
Contact    Quote!
I guess all your concerns, from the FS to the ore reserve report, are all valid, and should ideally be present in a perfect scenario. However, what sets investing in shares apart from a punt in the casino is that in shares, it allows for calculated and measured risk to be taken that commensurate with the rewards that you expect. From what we have seen to date of AMAL, from the offtake agreement with burwill, to the PFS, to the relevant authorities approving all the required licences for operations to commence, then JL entering the frame, and finally burwill's recent capital injection, there is nothing to suggest that our belief in AMAL will not come into fruition. Of course alot of assumptions are made along the way, and the project might just turn out to be a scam - but what are the odds? Moreover, if there was indeed a FS and ore report that results in the resources being marked to market at fair value on the balance sheet, we would highly probably not see the share price at 33cents now, maybe double or even more. 😀

sheerluck      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 15:17) Posted:

Let us know if you managed to out more.  Tjandra quoted GR in his interview.  I had a brief look at their AR2016, it seems they do have " proven" .  It seems like Pilbara haven' t started production so might be a closer match.

JORC is a guide.  So one can argued that it is a set of " good practises" gained from past experience both good but definitely more benficial from those bad ones.  It is not prescriptive but is there for good reason.  If a particular process is redundant and AMAL/TAW skipped it, I would agree but the FS is an important step in the go/no-go decision making so skipping it to me is simply a bad decision. 

AMAL may choose to skip FS if financing is not from banks (thanks to furnaces!) since they got it from Burwill.  But still it is an essence step from a business/investment decision-making process of their own.  Also they are two steps behind " proven" since they haven' t even got " measured" in the mineral resource report.

Anyway, less than two weeks to 24 Oct but entering the WVAP period soon.

RedEye1811      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 14:47) Posted:

You raise the follow question: " One of my previous questions is can they actually start mining without a ore reserve report.  Surely they need to have " proven" before they can mine, no?  Any example of other mining company that started mining without " proven" ore or started investment decision without a FS?  An ore report can also allow them to update their balance sheet with the value of the " proven" ore.  Isn' t it more proper that way?"

I do not have any example of other company taking similar approach off top of my head, and am bogged down to dig for one now. Will seek to dig when got time. However, in respect to your question, a question in reply: where is there a set of rules that require a mining entity to follow a prescribed set of steps?

Whilst it may have been convention to do this, then that and so forth, progression can come when people find other ways to doing it. Many advances is society are made when people buck convention. It may be " more proper" to development " proven" ore, but is that a required rule or merely society/industry established convention. If merely convention then if TAW/AMAL feel that based on the operations they are developing they do not have to prescribe to convention then what is the issue. If people always stuck to convention we would all be standing still.


 
 
ahhuat08
    12-Oct-2017 18:26  
Contact    Quote!
Sorry shoud have been 9.01 am, lol

ahhuat08      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 18:25) Posted:

Listed firm has 72 hours to lift the trading halt.

The 72 hours deadline is tomorrow morning firday, 13th oct 2017 9.10 am, any announcement must be made by then, be it lifting of trading halt or to be suspended for more time to release the announcement.

whymee      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 15:39) Posted:

Hi guys, is AMA confirm suspended ? 


 
 
ahhuat08
    12-Oct-2017 18:25  
Contact    Quote!
Listed firm has 72 hours to lift the trading halt.

The 72 hours deadline is tomorrow morning firday, 13th oct 2017 9.10 am, any announcement must be made by then, be it lifting of trading halt or to be suspended for more time to release the announcement.

whymee      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 15:39) Posted:

Hi guys, is AMA confirm suspended ? 

 

 
risktaker
    12-Oct-2017 17:34  
Contact    Quote!
I know a billionaire and a few over 100 millionaire.... none of them had a degree...and they dont follow textbook to do things
 
 
risktaker
    12-Oct-2017 17:17  
Contact    Quote!
Doesnt matter.... white cat or black cat as long as they can produce lithium.....

Textbooks are written by people guide lines are too....
Mark publish books also... getting a degree doesnt mean u will be successful... and those who didnt follow the normal degree path... are billionaire... bill gates, po bian kong, so many listed company towkay are too....

Sorry there are many ways of doing things and the guide line doesnt mean it is the best way and most efficient way to do things....

Mark way of doing things is one of the best way..... and most efficient... u drill enough to start the project and.then drill further to expand the resource....time to market is critical.... and alliance will benefit under mark strong leadership..

they start the project in 2016 and now 2017 they are developing it... within the next 5 month... they will deliver their first batch of lithium...

Go see other project they took them 4 to 5 years into production...

Also take note... mark did what he preach .... now the total resource is 25MT

The next upgrade in late Nov/Early Dec will bring the resource to 30 to 40 MT range

Singaporean must think outside of the box.... textbook methods arent always the best... becos there are always diff solution to every single problem....

Good luck









sheerluck      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 16:32) Posted:

Source: Pilbara 2017 AR http://www.pilbaraminerals.com.au/site/PDF/2020_0/2017AnnualReport

sheerluck      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 16:30) Posted:

Ok.  Pilbara has proven ore reserve (page 13) and did a Definitive FS (page 23 under Project implmentation Timeline flowchart).  So they followed the JORC guidance.

 


 
 
sheerluck
    12-Oct-2017 16:32  
Contact    Quote!
Source: Pilbara 2017 AR http://www.pilbaraminerals.com.au/site/PDF/2020_0/2017AnnualReport

sheerluck      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 16:30) Posted:

Ok.  Pilbara has proven ore reserve (page 13) and did a Definitive FS (page 23 under Project implmentation Timeline flowchart).  So they followed the JORC guidance.

 

risktaker      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 15:59) Posted:

http://www.pilbaraminerals.com.au/site/content/

A company worth 1.1Billion but it is same stage as alliance... they are developing their mines ...


 
 
sheerluck
    12-Oct-2017 16:30  
Contact    Quote!
Ok.  Pilbara has proven ore reserve (page 13) and did a Definitive FS (page 23 under Project implmentation Timeline flowchart).  So they followed the JORC guidance.

 

risktaker      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 15:59) Posted:

http://www.pilbaraminerals.com.au/site/content/

A company worth 1.1Billion but it is same stage as alliance... they are developing their mines ...

 
 
risktaker
    12-Oct-2017 15:59  
Contact    Quote!
http://www.pilbaraminerals.com.au/site/content/

A company worth 1.1Billion but it is same stage as alliance... they are developing their mines ...
 

 
sheerluck
    12-Oct-2017 15:46  
Contact    Quote!
On the Burwill agreement part, I am more interested in the " why" .  Why Burwill is willing to take more litium at lower quality and still paying the same rate at before?

AMAL is very blessed.  TAW helps with its operation (bearing in mind that TAW do own their own lithium mines which they are not developing and it does appear strange to me) and Burwill helps with its financing while AMAL simply investing their rights to mine minerals.

One can say in AMAL cashflow statement,
- TAW owes the operation cashflow
- AMAL owes the investing cashflow
- Burwill owes the financing cashflow

furnaces      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 14:37) Posted:

For AMAL/TAW, their aim is to get into production as fast as possible. Hence, they if there are steps that can be skipped, they will skip that.

​ AMAL/TAW has a reserve report that comes with the PFS, which determines its Life Of Mine to be less than 4 years. Not very impressive but that' s what they are doing. Going into production fiirst. The recently released is a resource update report. The reserve update will come in December.

​ From my understanding on the mining projects, you dont need a FS or DFS unless you are borrowing from the bank because banks require that. Otherwise, you can make do with a PFS. A PFS has lower confidence ratio but they are sufficient to start the operation. Also, havng a FS/DFS will mean delay of at least 1 more year. It is time consuming and not really necessary. And the window of opportunity might be lost.

​ Burwill also didnt reveal the exact changes in the offtake agreement, hence I guess it is not realy necessary to reveal them. Its all part of the business dealings.

sheerluck      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 14:14) Posted:

So far AMAL/TAW has only got a mineral resource and PFS report and they made the go/no-go decision to go.  JORC guided that mining company should carry out a FS to make that decision.  So it makes me wonder why the haste?

One of my previous questions is can they actually start mining without a ore reserve report.  Surely they need to have " proven" before they can mine, no?  Any example of other mining company that started mining without " proven" ore or started investment decision without a FS?  An ore report can also allow them to update their balance sheet with the value of the " proven" ore.  Isn' t it more proper that way?

The latest interview (can someone paste the link in this thread, thx!) from Tjandra revealed that there are some amendment to the offtake agreement.  Surely this warrant a official release in SGXNET.
 


 
 
whymee
    12-Oct-2017 15:39  
Contact    Quote!
Hi guys, is AMA confirm suspended ? 
 
 
sheerluck
    12-Oct-2017 15:17  
Contact    Quote!
Let us know if you managed to out more.  Tjandra quoted GR in his interview.  I had a brief look at their AR2016, it seems they do have " proven" .  It seems like Pilbara haven' t started production so might be a closer match.

JORC is a guide.  So one can argued that it is a set of " good practises" gained from past experience both good but definitely more benficial from those bad ones.  It is not prescriptive but is there for good reason.  If a particular process is redundant and AMAL/TAW skipped it, I would agree but the FS is an important step in the go/no-go decision making so skipping it to me is simply a bad decision. 

AMAL may choose to skip FS if financing is not from banks (thanks to furnaces!) since they got it from Burwill.  But still it is an essence step from a business/investment decision-making process of their own.  Also they are two steps behind " proven" since they haven' t even got " measured" in the mineral resource report.

Anyway, less than two weeks to 24 Oct but entering the WVAP period soon.

RedEye1811      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 14:47) Posted:

You raise the follow question: " One of my previous questions is can they actually start mining without a ore reserve report.  Surely they need to have " proven" before they can mine, no?  Any example of other mining company that started mining without " proven" ore or started investment decision without a FS?  An ore report can also allow them to update their balance sheet with the value of the " proven" ore.  Isn' t it more proper that way?"

I do not have any example of other company taking similar approach off top of my head, and am bogged down to dig for one now. Will seek to dig when got time. However, in respect to your question, a question in reply: where is there a set of rules that require a mining entity to follow a prescribed set of steps?

Whilst it may have been convention to do this, then that and so forth, progression can come when people find other ways to doing it. Many advances is society are made when people buck convention. It may be " more proper" to development " proven" ore, but is that a required rule or merely society/industry established convention. If merely convention then if TAW/AMAL feel that based on the operations they are developing they do not have to prescribe to convention then what is the issue. If people always stuck to convention we would all be standing still.


sheerluck      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 14:14) Posted:

So far AMAL/TAW has only got a mineral resource and PFS report and they made the go/no-go decision to go.  JORC guided that mining company should carry out a FS to make that decision.  So it makes me wonder why the haste?

One of my previous questions is can they actually start mining without a ore reserve report.  Surely they need to have " proven" before they can mine, no?  Any example of other mining company that started mining without " proven" ore or started investment decision without a FS?  An ore report can also allow them to update their balance sheet with the value of the " proven" ore.  Isn' t it more proper that way?

The latest interview (can someone paste the link in this thread, thx!) from Tjandra revealed that there are some amendment to the offtake agreement.  Surely this warrant a official release in SGXNET.
 


 
 
RedEye1811
    12-Oct-2017 14:47  
Contact    Quote!
You raise the follow question: " One of my previous questions is can they actually start mining without a ore reserve report.  Surely they need to have " proven" before they can mine, no?  Any example of other mining company that started mining without " proven" ore or started investment decision without a FS?  An ore report can also allow them to update their balance sheet with the value of the " proven" ore.  Isn' t it more proper that way?"

I do not have any example of other company taking similar approach off top of my head, and am bogged down to dig for one now. Will seek to dig when got time. However, in respect to your question, a question in reply: where is there a set of rules that require a mining entity to follow a prescribed set of steps?

Whilst it may have been convention to do this, then that and so forth, progression can come when people find other ways to doing it. Many advances is society are made when people buck convention. It may be " more proper" to development " proven" ore, but is that a required rule or merely society/industry established convention. If merely convention then if TAW/AMAL feel that based on the operations they are developing they do not have to prescribe to convention then what is the issue. If people always stuck to convention we would all be standing still.


sheerluck      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 14:14) Posted:

So far AMAL/TAW has only got a mineral resource and PFS report and they made the go/no-go decision to go.  JORC guided that mining company should carry out a FS to make that decision.  So it makes me wonder why the haste?

One of my previous questions is can they actually start mining without a ore reserve report.  Surely they need to have " proven" before they can mine, no?  Any example of other mining company that started mining without " proven" ore or started investment decision without a FS?  An ore report can also allow them to update their balance sheet with the value of the " proven" ore.  Isn' t it more proper that way?

The latest interview (can someone paste the link in this thread, thx!) from Tjandra revealed that there are some amendment to the offtake agreement.  Surely this warrant a official release in SGXNET.
 

 
 
furnaces
    12-Oct-2017 14:37  
Contact    Quote!
For AMAL/TAW, their aim is to get into production as fast as possible. Hence, they if there are steps that can be skipped, they will skip that.

​ AMAL/TAW has a reserve report that comes with the PFS, which determines its Life Of Mine to be less than 4 years. Not very impressive but that' s what they are doing. Going into production fiirst. The recently released is a resource update report. The reserve update will come in December.

​ From my understanding on the mining projects, you dont need a FS or DFS unless you are borrowing from the bank because banks require that. Otherwise, you can make do with a PFS. A PFS has lower confidence ratio but they are sufficient to start the operation. Also, havng a FS/DFS will mean delay of at least 1 more year. It is time consuming and not really necessary. And the window of opportunity might be lost.

​ Burwill also didnt reveal the exact changes in the offtake agreement, hence I guess it is not realy necessary to reveal them. Its all part of the business dealings.

sheerluck      ( Date: 12-Oct-2017 14:14) Posted:

So far AMAL/TAW has only got a mineral resource and PFS report and they made the go/no-go decision to go.  JORC guided that mining company should carry out a FS to make that decision.  So it makes me wonder why the haste?

One of my previous questions is can they actually start mining without a ore reserve report.  Surely they need to have " proven" before they can mine, no?  Any example of other mining company that started mining without " proven" ore or started investment decision without a FS?  An ore report can also allow them to update their balance sheet with the value of the " proven" ore.  Isn' t it more proper that way?

The latest interview (can someone paste the link in this thread, thx!) from Tjandra revealed that there are some amendment to the offtake agreement.  Surely this warrant a official release in SGXNET.
 

 
Important: Please read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy .