Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

BMN - Bannerman Energy

Jump to new
kariba said:
What you say is the REALTY!! Of course the ASX300 inclusion doesn’t automatically make BMN a successful company ... comparisons to "techwrecks" & the "HIH's" are totally absurd. The need for some to constantly come on this thread and make ridiculous comparisons is is just inane!
Click to expand...
kariba, as you have indicated, the comment was made that simply inclusion in the S&P300 does not make a quality company.

professor_frink said:
Just because it's in the ASX300 today doesn't mean that it will necessarily stay there, nor does it make it a quality company.
Click to expand...
It doesn't really matter what the companies were that PF referred to, they were included in the S&P for a legitimate reason at the time, and they failed.

As I indicated above, previous resource companies to make the S&P300 or higher have included PSV, BDG, Sons of Gwalia, and I'm sure there are many other examples. Many who have failed for whatever reason.

Pointing this out creates a balance for members to appreciate that there is always risk in investing, and what looks outstanding on the surface, may not hold up in the long term.

This is not 'downramping', as some might believe, and people who have an alternate view to the quality of BMN are most welcome to post here. ASF highly encourages contructive debate and discussion on the positives, and negatives, of a company's potential. There is no need to start playing the man simply because they point out something that simply puts things in perspective.

As I also stated above generally inclusion into the indicies is positive because the funds who track the indicies will have to buy it. It should also put it on the radar for more investors who only watch the index companies.
 
kennas said:
This is not 'downramping' as some might believe

Generally inclusion into the indicies is positive because the funds who track the indicies will have to buy it. It should also put it on the radar for more investors who only watch the index companies
Click to expand...

I agree, we need to be careful about calling every poster a "downramper" because he posts something of contrary nature to us. I actually thought the poster was more so nit-picking, or word-picking. The post was also patronizing, rather than having any constructive input ... enough said about that.

I notice SLV put out a notice regarding their inclusion in the ASX300 which sums it up:

"The S&P/ASX All Ordinaries index is Australia's premier market indicator. It represents the 500 largest companies in the Australian equities market. Index constituents are drawn from eligible companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.

The S&P/ASX 300 index provides additional depth and coverage in the Australian equities market. Index constituents are drawn from eligible companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange.

This index is designed to address investment managers' needs to benchmark against a portfolio characterized by sufficient size and liquidity. S&P/ASX 300 is a component of the Australian indices that could be used as building blocks for portfolio construction."

cheers
 
bliimp said:
Kariba! LOL!
I have been a believer in BMN for quite some time and continue to be a believer!
If you had read my post more carefully you would have realised that I was being facetious in a light hearted manner in reponse to professor frink. There is no need to produce a war-and-peace reponse to justify the positives of BMN's ASX300 listing.
But remember, your argument for down-ramping can be countered just as easily with an accusation of up-ramping by yourself and others in ASF and other sites.
Click to expand...

Hi Bliimp

Firstly: I never accused anyone of downramping ... another poster did. I just said that the comparison was "absurd" ... which it is, & I'll explain why.

Secondly: Lets get it all in CONTEXT shall we. This all started with a conversation between 2 posters about the URANIUM sector going through consolidation & the QUALITY ones left remaining. Then a comment made that inclusion in the ASX300 now makes it one.

It could have been better worded, but I totally agree with that comment ... IN CONTEXT that is ... the context being that excluding PDN & ERA, BMN is now one of the top quality URANIUM STOCKS out there. Of course, Index inclusion doesnt suddenly make it one, but being one of ONLY THREE inclusions in the ASX300 does now endorse & advertise these three: AGS, DYL, and now BMN as worthy of considering.

Thirdly: I agree with everyone that BMN and the others mentioned now need to "come up with the goods" to prove their status as a Top-Tier uranium stock. The next six months will tell!

Fourthly: My post was not directed at you ... :confused:

Have a good one

cheers
 
Hey guys,

Haven't been posting (or reading) much lately. Has anyone been in touch with management regarding the Scoping Study and when we can expect it? I think it should be coming out this month.

Cheers.
 
jj0007 said:
Hey guys,

Haven't been posting (or reading) much lately. Has anyone been in touch with management regarding the Scoping Study and when we can expect it? I think it should be coming out this month.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
It was supposed to be last month, but the company has failed to provide an update other than to apparantly tell some analysts that it will be out 'before the end of 07', along with a revised resource estimate.

Pretty glowing Fat Profits report.
 
This has been floating around from Far East Capital. Gives a guestimate of what BMN's scoping study may come up with except change $90 lb to $45 lb. I'd expect the next resource update to be higher than the 220 ppm in the initial one due to the recent grades, but hard to say how much higher it will go. Perhaps 250ppm.....to be conservative. Although FEC are using cash costs at 310 ppm, so maybe they know something we don't.
 

Attachments

  • BMN FEC paper.GIF
    BMN FEC paper.GIF
    25.6 KB · Views: 256
Can anyone suggest reasons why the cash cost per lb decreases as the grade reduces? This seems counter intuitive - I would have thought cash costs would increase as the grade reduces as it would mean they have they have to process a larger amount of ore to extract the same amount of uranium.
 
doctorj said:
Can anyone suggest reasons why the cash cost per lb decreases as the grade reduces? This seems counter intuitive - I would have thought cash costs would increase as the grade reduces as it would mean they have they have to process a larger amount of ore to extract the same amount of uranium.
Click to expand...
I think it's an error, and the numbers seem proportionally conservative to me. The difference between digging up ore at 220ppm and 310ppm to produce the same product would require quite a bit more time and resources I'd imagine.

What do you think of the figures otherwise?
 
So the first years 'per share cash generated ' @ say,250 ppm is A$540 million...... this equates to $1.99 per share presently on issue !!
In theory this income from just one year alone .....yes .. could nearly pay for the whole cost of the Mine consrtuction .....

For example , hypothetically ; if they did do that , then thereafter just imagine what sort of earnings per share that would come out of this baby "cash cow"....then dividends Hmmmmm!!...Why not believe it will become a reality.. Greed is good !!


And what about F.E.Capital suggesting (bmn ) are looking at 'Off-take agreements in December....!!I presume bmn can sell to whomever they want to ...& not come under 'Australian rules'....hmmm...must check up on that one !!

O.K. O. K .....so they will be using $45 a pound for the scoping study..... but still seems so low considering its still 3 years until production.....

The delay in the scoping study I hope is because the extra drilling results will increase the size of the pit area (resource).....plus bmn realise the (world) share markets are subdued,negative etc etc.....personally I know enough from FEC's figures so they can keep it delayed for another month!!....and keep drilling, drilling, drilling !!

So guys here's plenty of verbage for you to pick apart for a while ..hahahah....cheers, captjohn Argggghhhh!!
 
captjohn said:
So the first years 'per share cash generated ' @ say,250 ppm is A$540 million...... this equates to $1.99 per share presently on issue !!
Click to expand...
Well, for a start good capt, you will note in the assumptions that the figures are calculated on double the shares on issue. Don't need to read any further. cheers.
 
Hi all

Times are certainly getting VERY interesting with Bannerman. Just some comments:

kennas said:
Well, for a start good capt, you will note in the assumptions that the figures are calculated on double the shares on issue. Don't need to read any further. cheers.
Click to expand...

Kennas, I think our Captain is aware of that, he did say "per share presently on issue" ... Interesting to keep in mind that much of any Cap Raising will be at much higher prices as we approach development stage. Another 120m shares at say $3.50- $4.50 will just about cover the bulk of the CAPEX.

doctorj said:
Can anyone suggest reasons why the cash cost per lb decreases as the grade reduces? This seems counter intuitive - I would have thought cash costs would increase as the grade reduces as it would mean they have they have to process a larger amount of ore to extract the same amount of uranium.
Click to expand...

That is not correct doctor, in both cases the SAME amount of ore still has to be mined. In the case of lower grade then the “bulk mining” factor comes into play & reduces costs. If they have to end up processing only the higher grade portions, they lose that advantage as a lot of the higher grade ore will be at depth, so they effectively have massive tonnage to now mine & shift for NO gain. The extra $$ earned by faster processing of higher grade ore is offset by the extra costs of selective ore mining, & re-handling of any low grade which effectively becomes waste!!

The company is working their collective butt off at the moment to get everything in place by years end to be able to be in a position to enter off-take agreements in December. By then a number of variables will be cleared up, including scoping study details & VERY importantly the medium-term price of uranium. We will find that as long as they can get $45 p/lb & above for their product, then they will be fine. As sure as the Pope is Catholic, if these two factors are positive, we will see “low grade, bulk mining” the way that Bannerman goes.

As the FEC report shows, this will produce the same (actually better) scale of economies, & yet will at least DOUBLE the mine life!

Scoping study will confirm the direction

cheers
 
kariba said:
Kennas, I think our Captain is aware of that, he did say "per share presently on issue" ... Interesting to keep in mind that much of any Cap Raising will be at much higher prices as we approach development stage. Another 120m shares at say $3.50- $4.50 will just about cover the bulk of the CAPEX.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if he did actually, but we'll never know. I would assume future cap raisings will be at a higher price, and I hope around those levels, but it's a bit presumptous. Probably a fair range though.

kariba said:
That is not correct doctor, in both cases the SAME amount of ore still has to be mined. In the case of lower grade then the “bulk mining” factor comes into play & reduces costs. If they have to end up processing only the higher grade portions, they lose that advantage as a lot of the higher grade ore will be at depth, so they effectively have massive tonnage to now mine & shift for NO gain. The extra $$ earned by faster processing of higher grade ore is offset by the extra costs of selective ore mining, & re-handling of any low grade which effectively becomes waste!!
Click to expand...
This makes sence, but as you have said the higher grade ore is at depth, and if your own assumptions of the project are true they won't be mining that for 15-20 years. As I have assumed it will be much more expensive to be mining under the top few alaskites down to 250m+. Op ex will be much higher at these depths but as you say, offset by grade. Just how much will be the question.

Thanks for the points kariba. :)

The reports that were written by the analysts on the tour were overall pretty positive.

There's still some small questions about infrastructure including power and water. The desalination plant and power from Zambia are planned for 2009, but there's a lot of water under the bridge till then. Since Namibia are focussing on this industry so much, you'd expect them to work hard to ensure these key assets are finished on time. I'm feeling pretty comfortable with this, but it's still a risk.

In regards to scoping study, I'm disappointed they haven't provided an update. Unless it's imminent.

Thanks again for your reasonable and measured responses. Nice change in this thread! :)
 
I see consolidation in the short term.

Uranium is not hot at the moment.

Not everyone understands which companies are do produce.

But I beleive BMN is as good as any explorer.

The days of finding the next PDN at 1 cent are gone I believe.

The days of finding the next PDN at $1-$3 are upon us.

A lot of uranium stocks will be duds, so choose wisely.
 
Interesting to keep in mind that much of any Cap Raising will be at much higher prices as we approach development stage. Another 120m shares at say $3.50- $4.50 will just about cover the bulk of the CAPEX.
Click to expand...
In the FarEast report it is explained that they are including all shares and options. Apparently the vast majority of these options are exercisable at which is obviously just a fraction of the current trading price.
 
kennas said:
This makes sence, but as you have said the higher grade ore is at depth, and if your own assumptions of the project are true they won't be mining that for 15-20 years.
Click to expand...

Hi Kennas

Looks like my presumtions might be wrong!! According to Warrick Grigor (Far East) they want to have BIG operation going of up to 4200 tpa ... that is bulk & will halve my projection!!

Will be interesting to see

cheers
 
Is it just me, or did it look as though there are a few more buyers starting to cue up with some slightly bigger orders?

The bears still have a good grip on Uranium at the moment.
Kariba and Kennas, id just like to say that your posts prove for some very interesting reading and I personaly appriciate what you guys have to say:)

You guys ever thought about actually opening a mine yourselves??;)
Karibs you almost sound like you have a mining background...or do u secretly work for Bannerman:cautious: hehe.

Thx guys.
 
kariba said:
Looks like they want to have a BIG operation going of up to 4200 tpa ... that is bulk & will halve my projection!
Click to expand...

That sounds confusing! I should say FEC seems to indicate they have a plan that is DOUBLE my production estimates, & will effectely HALVE the minelife I had in mind.

If they pull that off, BMN will indeed become a world force in uranium production.

Early days .. bring on the scoping study!

cheers
 
Go Nuke said:
Is it just me, or did it look as though there are a few more buyers starting to cue up with some slightly bigger orders?
Click to expand...
Little increase in volume which is good. Would like to see over 500m with the sp going up!

kariba said:
That sounds confusing! I should say FEC seems to indicate they have a plan that is DOUBLE my production estimates, & will effectely HALVE the minelife I had in mind.
Click to expand...
Kariba, FEC are calling for about the same production rate as Rossing aren't they? Any idea when Rossing is due to expire by the way? I think I remember 2016 for some reason, although I alsi read they were spenfing over $100m on new trucks and equipment this year also. If Rossing does start to wind down mid 2010s then RIO will surely be looking to replace it with something. Do I remember in their last reports they were talking about adding to their U assets anyway?


Just throwing a few S&R lines around and I see a bit of an inverse H&S forming with the neck line corresponding with the downward resistance trend line. If this comes to fruition, and it breaks, we're looking at approximately a $3.30 target, which is also around what will be resistance at $3.25. Might be a bit tenuous, the downward trend is still well in tact.

Perhaps if U price turns and a very positive scoping study materialises, this will have the excuse to change direction......I wonder if a positive scoping study is factored into this already :confused:

(I still have concerns of US market ripples though too :( )
 

Attachments

  • BMN.gif
    BMN.gif
    19.2 KB · Views: 135
Trading halt till Tuesday for??

1. Scoping Study
2. Resource Upgrade
3. Going into Administration :eek: ;)

Probably 1 & 2.
 
kennas said:
Trading halt till Tuesday for??

1. Scoping Study
2. Resource Upgrade
3. Going into Administration :eek: ;)

Probably 1 & 2.
Click to expand...

Kennas, LOL

Hopefully not 3!!!

Yes about Rossings output ... they had 3,700tpa last year, 4000tpa, this year, and have a max target of 4,500tpa next year ... (The Rossing plant capacity is 4,500tpa) ... So 4,200 goal for Goanikontes is world class.

Grigor says about Rossing:
"The Future Mining and Treatment Plans
a. In December 2005, the mine life was extended to 2016, with potential to go
out until 2021 (but there is widespread expectation that it could still be
operating in 2050)."

Obviously depends on reasonable U prices because from now on they mine much lower grade ore.

I have also been watching the inverse H&S ... I didnt like the lowered right shoulder & continuing downtrend though ... however a positive announcement now could reverse everything from here on.

Well the Trading halt is exciting:eek:

We will have some answers soon!!

cheers
 
Top