VSE's clarification request discussed at AGM
I attended the AGM on Monday. Ted Daem spoke on behalf of the company. There was a mention of the recent halt and that the VSE didn't like ITC saying that the project has in-ground proven assets of $3Billion US without an independent engineering report. (I am paraphrasing here and don't know about all the issues/legalities). That 3rd party report is nearly complete and I was told yesterday by the IR guys that it will be in the office at Tournigan in 10 days. I expect no surprises though (unless to the upside) because the $3B US figure comes from Kappes, Cassiday. These guys are highly respected and known to be conservative in making estimates.
Dan Kappes was at the AGM and discussed the project in detail. Throughout the presentation, whenever he discussed the spreadsheet projections, he made it clear they were taking the worst case scenario: for example, when detailing the value of manganese (Mn) sales, the Mn metal sales were discounted from $2.10/kg, the metal price, to $0.20/kg, the price of a less refined product. As another example, he spoke of silver grades at 120g/tonne from old drill results but noted bulk sampling produced three times that grade. (The drill holes are to be rechecked in the feasibility study.) He added up the sales of Cu, Ag and the various types of Mn (one of the most valuable components being the sales of EMD, electrolytic manganese dioxide, used in dry cell batteries). Using the conservative numbers, he came to a figure of about $150 Million US in sales revenues per year for a 20 year mine life. Production is expected to start in the year 2000.
I liked his talk - thought it was a good mix of geology, economics, and marketing. The was no hyperbole that I could detect. He seemed a very understated speaker. Mr Kappes, whose firm has done mining engineering feasibility studies and built processing plants (largely heap leach for Au/Ag), claimed this was one of the most exciting projects he'd seen in many years.
He also talked about his choice of Tournigan for this project. I was interested in this point as well because Mr Kappes shopped this deal around to larger firms/investment groups. The reasons (not a complete list) he stated for going with ITG were:
- he liked the fact that this project will become a major focus for ITC. In a larger company, it would have been one of many projects. Feasibility and production might have been delayed for years. With the smaller firm, there is better focus and therefore a shorter time for return on investment. (I suspect Kappes, Cassiday also may get a larger equity stake by dealing with a smaller firm.)
- the gold production potential in Africa is a good fit for Kappes, Cassiday's experience in gold heap leach production. It complements the deal nicely for both parties.
-most of all Mr Kappes stressed that he went with ITC because of the management of Ted Daem. He particularly emphasized Mr Daem's marketing skills. The sales and marketing of Mn is a large part of the revenues from this project and Mr K. said that Ted Daem was the best candidate to sell the product.
Tournigan liked the deal, of course, because it takes them from being an exploration outfit to a mid-size producer. This secures cash flow (a very good one) and adds value for the investor.
I don't know about the Feb 20 deadline for the option, (I'll call and ask) but it was clear to me from the meeting that both parties liked each other and wanted this deal (Berenguela) in this company. |
