Chatham Rock Phosphate - CRP

[croesus]

Moosie... whats with the cryptic crossword... keep away from the datura.

[BlackPeter]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10266030/Moriori-trust-opposes-seabed-mining-plans

Oh dear - I understand that CRP consulted with the Maoris, but did they forget the Mariori? Did they miss out on the koha - gravy - train or did the Green party just invest more to calibrate their conscience?

[croesus]

Thank goodness, we got our land cleared, Railway Lines Built, Roads, Ports etc... back 100 plus years ago...

[easy money]

Interesting article on stuff.co.nz this morning...the fishing industry seem to be at war with CRP.

[winner69]

Interesting article on stuff.co.nz this morning...the fishing industry seem to be at war with CRP.

Fishing industry need to get real

Heaps more economic benefit in trawling up the ocean floor to extract whatever CRAP want than in trawling for fish - the multiple is quite high

[Toasty]

I would have thought that Uranium would be a bonus. Kind of like finding diamonds in your Gold mine.

[Xerof]

Smith's final comment in that article will hardly inspire confidence in the CRP camp.

[goldfish]

Talk about hippocrites, the fishing industry have been raping the ocean and sea bed for years, a single bottom trawler would do hundreds time more damage then this ever would. Hopefully the epa will see them for the hippocrites they are.

[toucan22]

http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/r...ty-to-fish.cfm (http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/research/technical-papers-and-articles/2011/2011-uranium-toxicity-to-fish.cfm)

Based on above and given the dust clouds raised by bottom trawling fishing gear, looks like the fishing industries “Deep water” group have just given the Greenies a very good argument for banning bottom trawling on the Chatham Rise.

[blackcap]

http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/r...ty-to-fish.cfm (http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/research/technical-papers-and-articles/2011/2011-uranium-toxicity-to-fish.cfm)

Based on above and given the dust clouds raised by bottom trawling fishing gear, looks like the fishing industries “Deep water” group have just given the Greenies a very good argument for banning bottom trawling on the Chatham Rise.

Its good then that the Greens are not in power then and won't be for the foreseeable future!

[Intel]

You can read all of the submissions now on the eap website, boy are they wide and varied. Check out Allen_T_110195 (http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/EEZ000006/Allen_T_110195.pdf) a "fiction writer". In all sersiousness though, I was hoping to see a submission from Ballance or Ravensdown as they will likely be NZ's customers, but does not look like they submitted. There seems to be a lot of lobby groups against CRP and those that are for it / neutral are wanting to see a lot more conditions and / or scientific evidence to validate the claims made by CRp. ( I have only looked at a few submisisons, so selection bias is ever present in that comment)

Does anyone know if they are unfortunate enough to be declined, they can go back, get more data etc and reapply?

[sommelier]

7 days out from the AIM listing. What can we expect it does to the nzx price? What's the appetite for risky mining stocks in London like?

[artemis]

..... Does anyone know if they are unfortunate enough to be declined, they can go back, get more data etc and reapply?

Assume it will be the same as the TTR case - a yes/no decision (no in TTR case) and appeal on points of law only.

[sommelier]

Assume it will be the same as the TTR case - a yes/no decision (no in TTR case) and appeal on points of law only.

Then why would they give submissions the option of 'Grant - with conditions'?

[artemis]

Then why would they give submissions the option of 'Grant - with conditions'?

Yes with conditions is not the same as no.

[winner69]

CRP shareholders need to question Castle and Sanders at the AGM and not sit there and drink beer like sheep like at last years AGM. Till now most Castle vehicles (wid aor crp etc) have been wealth destroyers as evident by a declining share price. Lets hope that CRP can get the go ahead and not go the way of ASN, KSM etc.

Is this Linda the same Linda Sanders who pens a weekly column in The Listener

Seems to have a bit of a greenie slant to her

[Joshuatree]

That would be hilarious. She is a journalist i believe and is also paid as a director and consultant to both companies like CC.

[croesus]

So what is the problem with her articles in the Listener ?

Your happy to snipe behind a non de plume.

How about letting us know what you have achievied....

[Joshuatree]

Hey croesus ;i think its funny , ironical, if she has a green slant .One of the bigger risks with CRP is the environmental concerns. Im not aware of reading any of her articles but am sure i have.

[Joshuatree]

Edited duplicate

[croesus]

How can you not be aware ? if your sure you have ? ( your words ) ( suggest you see your G.P and change your medication )
Re CRP and environmental concerns , every day dozens of deep sea trawlers, drag their weighted nets over the sea floor causing untold damage and sand disturbance plumes.... what a pack of hypocrites to argue against CRP ..
bearing in mind they cover and wreck more sea bed in a year, then CRP would gently with hardly any disturbance visit in a 100 years

[winner69]

How can you not be aware ? if your sure you have ? ( your words ) ( suggest you see your G.P and change your medication )
Re CRP and environmental concerns , every day dozens of deep sea trawlers, drag their weighted nets over the sea floor causing untold damage and sand disturbance plumes.... what a pack of hypocrites to argue against CRP ..
bearing in mind they cover and wreck more sea bed in a year, then CRP would gently with hardly any disturbance visit in a 100 years

and you need to take into account that the finished product is better for the environment than the current imported stuff

[Joshuatree]

We've both been moderated croesus. Ive learnt my lesson ,please calm down.
Your risk /reward meter is very different to mine. I read the listener occasionally for the great articles.Have no memory of who the authors are.
Correct me if I'm wrong but is this the first seabed mining in NZ waters or have some iron sands being mined already? They will and have to be extremely thorough in assessing this longterm project so the bar will be set very high environmentally and culturally . Too risky to put my funds in. Ive covered management and Admin costs; have you had a good look?

[croesus]

Exactly Winner69.

Plus we don't need to freight it from Morocco, which is about as far from N.Z as it gets.

Plus what happens if Morroco ends up like Syria, Libya, Egypt, Gaza etc... and we cant get it any way ?

[croesus]

We've both been moderated croesus. Ive learnt my lesson ,please calm down.
Your risk /reward meter is very different to mine. I read the listener occasionally for the great articles.Have no memory of who the authors are.
Correct me if I'm wrong but is this the first seabed mining in NZ waters or have some iron sands being mined already? They will and have to be extremely thorough in assessing this longterm project so the bar will be set very high environmentally and culturally . Too risky to put my funds in. Ive covered management and Admin costs; have you had a good look?

I am quite calm !

Its not mining.. the stuff is ( phosphate nodules ) are lying on the surface, CRP... just hoover it up

Yes I have had a good look.

Yes it is risky. so is life..

Im not putting the ranch on it .. ( so too speak )

[croesus]

BTW.. far more damage is done every day by deep sea trawlers then CRP could do in 100 years.

Its just that trawling is a existing use right... they ( the Fishing body ) are almost as much a hypocrite as Laila Harre ( quiet shudder )

[percy]

Exactly Winner69.

Plus we don't need to freight it from Morocco, which is about as far from N.Z as it gets.

Plus what happens if Morroco ends up like Syria, Libya, Egypt, Gaza etc... and we cant get it any way ?

Should not be too far away before we can import it from Northern Territory company RUM.
Then every one will be happy.

[MAC]

Should not be too far away before we can import it from Northern Territory company RUM.
Then every one will be happy.

I’ve been following that one too Percy, pre-feasibility is due in August now, the JORC is high volume but quite low grade product and it will incur re-processing costs, quite remote from the northern ports also.

Compared with Moroccan product which is higher grade 32% and mined close to port, RUM will be looking to compete on transport margins with lower grade lower value product 14 to 18%.

Overland to Darwin then shipping to Asia/NSW/VIC, versus Moroccan product circa $65/t shipped to this part of the world. It will all be in the numbers, but I'm not sure the margins will really be there.

[percy]

RUM presentation to Morgans Mining Conference 17th July was positive.

[croesus]

Sounds like RUM deal to me !

[easy money]

Another article this morning from stuff.co.nz....it would appear that the EPA is concerned about levels of Uranium and has asked CRP to get back to them about this....it will be interesting to see what Chris Castle comes up with...the EPA could well grant CRP a permit...but it is not going to be easy...

[MAC]

It’s more about George Clements ego and messing with the media, all fertilizers have trace elements.

This from ‘The Crown’ submission to the EPA;

“Information received from the fertiliser industry indicates that current superphosphate produced in New Zealand has a uranium content of around 60 ppm on average, while some imported triple superphosphate has concentrations of around 200 ppm (Warwick Catto, Ballance Agi-Nutrients, private communication).”

The EPA are probably interested in what "around" means, could be 150, could be 250. I checked through several Ravensdown and Ballance specs this morning, no mention of Uranium whatsoever. One would imagine though that the EPA would be interested to know what the ranges of products in the market are, as would we all. The CRP product will have on average 156 to 181ppm Uranium.

I don’t see that EPA could exclude CRP on trace elements alone if there are multiple very similar products, or products with higher levels, that have been entrenched in the market place for a very long time.

And, Cadmium does seem to be a bigger issue on NZ farms than Uranium.

[goldfish]

Well i sold out today, for a 13% profit in a week or so not to bad especially for such a illiquid stock.
In fact i think only a couple of other trades have passed in that time.
I didnt want to when i bought but after reading how high the bar has been set for anyone attempting to go through the epa process, i just cant see crp getting there. Add to that the iwi and chatam natives opposing it after i was lead to believe that they where in support.
I really hope they do but the irrational hysteria around mining in this country leads me to think it will be impossible to do any sort of underwater mining no matter how small the footprint or how good it improves the environment or economy.
I really hope im wrong and the epa approves this but its to risk high for me now.
One thing that really disappointed me was the fishing industry opposing it so much, having worked on bottom trawlers and done river dredging for gold as a hobby the damage one tow can do ripping up stretches of reef yet a dead area of sand and they oppose it, ridiculous. If boats had to go through the same process crp has to now there is no way they would be allowed to do any bottom trawling, bunch of hippocrites.
Rant over. Gluck crp.

[Intel]

Well i sold out today, for a 13% profit in a week or so not to bad especially for such a illiquid stock.
In fact i think only a couple of other trades have passed in that time.
I didnt want to when i bought but after reading how high the bar has been set for anyone attempting to go through the epa process, i just cant see crp getting there. Add to that the iwi and chatam natives opposing it after i was lead to believe that they where in support.
I really hope they do but the irrational hysteria around mining in this country leads me to think it will be impossible to do any sort of underwater mining no matter how small the footprint or how good it improves the environment or economy.
I really hope im wrong and the epa approves this but its to risk high for me now.
One thing that really disappointed me was the fishing industry opposing it so much, having worked on bottom trawlers and done river dredging for gold as a hobby the damage one tow can do ripping up stretches of reef yet a dead area of sand and they oppose it, ridiculous. If boats had to go through the same process crp has to now there is no way they would be allowed to do any bottom trawling, bunch of hippocrites.
Rant over. Gluck crp.


I agree with you on you're bottom trawling comments.

someone please correct me if I'm wrong, however I thought the reason the fishing industry is up in arms is due to the location of CRP's mining site.

It is located in a benthic protection area (BPA) (or at least part of it overlaps) one of 17 BPA's set up by the fishing association back in 2007 to ensure sustainable fish stocks etc. I read that the BPA's are NOT bottom trawled and the fishing industry was inpart responsible for self regulation of their own industry (something not commonly done). It's only due to the BPA that makes CRP's application even more difficult compared to TTR's who wasnt in a BPA...

That is the way I read about BPA's (although arguably a while ago).

I hope to stand corrected and get a better understanding. It should be noted that in Namibia a project did not go ahead due to concerns bought forward by the fishing industry (similar project, sucking up phosphate from around 250m)..

[Intel]

Also,

Another note, CRP was supposed to List on AIM tonight but the date has now changed to the 8th of August... (did anyone go to the AGM and listen to what CC said about AIM?) CRP have been pitching this for a while now with Wimmer in charge and thought they would have wrapped it up.

[easy money]

Quite high vol for Crp going through today..looks like interest is building

[MAC]

Quite high vol for Crp going through today..looks like interest is building

If you were a larger investor waiting to buy off a book build on the AIM, why would you not want to snap up the loose change on the NZAX. The book build has a floor at NZ$0.25, AIM listing is due next week.

[easy money]

If you were a larger investor waiting to buy off a book build on the AIM, why would you not want to snap up the loose change on the NZAX. The book build has a floor at NZ$0.25, AIM listing is due next week.

Big buyer stepping up at .23c...someone looking to to take a stake in Crp..

[BlackPeter]

Big buyer stepping up at .23c...someone looking to to take a stake in Crp..

well .. everything is relative: 100,000 shares would represent 0.062% of the company at $23,000 at bid price. Yes, it would be a stake (as any share holding), but not sure I would call this "big" buyer?

[Roberto]

well .. everything is relative: 100,000 shares would represent 0.062% of the company at $23,000 at bid price. Yes, it would be a stake (as any share holding), but not sure I would call this "big" buyer?

And in any case, they seem to have disappeared...

[BlackPeter]

And in any case, they seem to have disappeared...

They did - today we have a prospective seller (100,000 shares at .23) instead, but lost the bidder. These guys should really better synchronise.;)

[easy money]

They did - today we have a prospective seller (100,000 shares at .23) instead, but lost the bidder. These guys should really better synchronise.;)

Well that seller with 100.000 at .23c has just been bought out.

[MAC]

Well that seller with 100.000 at .23c has just been bought out.

Provided one anticipates a successful marine consent, it may be we are seeing a last opportunity for local investors to get some reasonable volumes at these levels.

The book build has a NZ$0.25 floor, and the raising price may well be higher, could be a lot higher, and will probably set the SP ahead of the announcement in November (or sooner).

Aside from what will be offered in the UK no further capital raising should be required through to profitable operation.

[easy money]

Provided one anticipates a successful marine consent, it may be we are seeing a last opportunity for local investors to get some reasonable volumes at these levels.

The book build has a NZ$0.25 floor, and the raising price may well be higher, could be a lot higher, and will probably set the SP ahead of the announcement in November (or sooner).

Aside from what will be offered in the UK no further capital raising should be required through to profitable operation.

UP a cent today...I know its not much but it could mean a change in direction for Crp

[easy money]

Another buyer has stepped in at 23c with a big order...looks like someone is taking a position in this stock

[blackcap]

Hi, Can anyone divulge what CRP's market cap is ?
Cheers Punter

Just because you are a newby.. :) its $36.8 million give or take a few cents. It's easy enough to find out if you want by going to the ANZ securities website:

http://www.anzsecurities.co.nz/directtrade/dynamic/quote.aspx?qqeg=NZ&qqsc=crp&QuickQuote=+Go+

If you look for a stock quote and go to the "detailed" section you will find it there.

[Joshuatree]

Or you can go to the NZX website click on Markets click on NZAM click on click on All securities and you got it. NZX charts also have 50 and 200DMA etc.

[bmrm]

https://nzx.com/companies/CRP/announcements/253466

"Chatham Rock Phopshate (CRP or the Company) announces that it has advised the Environmental Protection Authority that it will remove the eastern end of application area covered by prospecting permit 55967, comprising 4,985 km2 and representing about half the total, so the area for which marine consent is being applied now totals 5,207 km2.
“Reducing the size of the Company’s application area will have no impact on CRP’s mining plans for the first 15 years, which is covered by its approved mining permit and is subject only to a marine consent,” Managing Director Chris Castle said. "

Quite a clever move I would say, improves chances of a positive ruling at no short-term cost, and presumably if the plan is successful the process for getting at the secondary portion will be easier.

[BlackPeter]

I got totally the opposite meaning from that bmrm. Why would they reduce so soon after submitting? Are they trying to appease the Greenies here? I thought the EPA wpuld be assessing the effects of the mining as a whole, regardless of size.

Another red flag, not looking good Mr Castle...

Actually, I thought this was a quite clever move from CRP. They basically removed the complete zone protected by the fishing industry from their application, which has initially (for the first 15 years) absolutely no impact on them. After that time there will be real data what (if any) impact the mining has on the seabed, so people can talk based on data than based on hype, as they do now. If we assume the impact is minor, than it will be much easier at that stage to get a permit to mine the rest. If unexpectedly the impact is larger, than no harm done to the fishing protected areas and CRP might have found alternatives (or at least made money for 15 years). Win-win.

[MAC]

Quite a clever move I would say, improves chances of a positive ruling at no short-term cost, and presumably if the plan is successful the process for getting at the secondary portion will be easier.

I think so too, a bit of give and take is required in a negotiated process, the ‘take’ doesn't need to impact CRP financially or the economic benefits negatively.

There may or may not be a stigma around a revisit of the eastern benthic claim, but if the first marine consent is successful there should be no reason why a future second shouldn’t also be successful on the same environmental basis.

Good to see the CRP team working with the EPA so closely, rather than fighting them like Trans Tasman, and one would hope too that the effort made in answering every pedantic little question will satisfy the DMC and leave them with a positive disposition.

[Xerof]

If anyone has bothered to read the detailed analysis of submissions, they will find opposition is largely multiple emotion-based claptrap out of Raglan.

on the other side, the science-based responses published so far to EPA questions appear to be demolishing the claptrap, brick by brick.

smart move to pull the mat from under most fisher objections!!

there is a huge amount of data up on the EPA site for those with a few days to read it

disc: no direct holding, but interested in seeing NZ move forward

[easy money]

Hi Moose..its all about getting your foot in the door..crossing that hurdle....if the license is granted and all goes well then this extra area can be looked into at a later date.

[sommelier]

Moosie's point is that the side that's backtracking is the side that's loosing. And he's correct. Four posters in a row need a scepticism injection.

Disc: Holder, at a loss, for over 6 months now.

[Intel]

Someone please correct me if I am misunderstanding but aren't the fishing groups largely aggrieved at the demolishment of benthic protection areas due to CRP's proposed mining location? Eliminating that mining block from the EPA application does not do anything with regards to BPA's that were established to create long term sustainable fisheries for NZ as the mining area and BPA still overlap? Underlying the BPA's are laws which govern the fishing industry and no nets are allowed to be within 50m of the sea floor etc. There seems to be an anomaly within the law that the area can be mined and is something that the fishing industry will fight hard to uphold (as they were the ones who self goverened their own industry by creating these areas along with MPI back in 2007). I would not be surprised if this becomes somewhat of a legal battle regarding those grounds even if CRP is successful and the $bn fishing industry has a lot of resources and I imagine will fight to the bitter end.



*Still watching from the sidelines as I find the process interesting, with no intent of ever investing.

[MAC]

Or it's a normal pre-consideration heading into a negotiated process, one cannot compromise without having first allowed room for compromise.

It takes some wind out of the fishing boat sails, the analyst DCF includes 15 year revenue streams from the primary application area only, and valuations remain intact.

Not long now Sommelier, nearly all would have entered expecting consenting delays, because there are very nearly always consenting delays, nice though that there's a fix timeline now to consider, assuming the decision is not early, also possible.

[croesus]

Cheers for your last post Moose... your post at 10.22 last night wasn't up to your normal high standard.

I just presumed you had got on the outside of half a bottle of Canadian Club.

Sommeliar lighten up.. nothing is lost yet... !

well I will re address that Cunliffe has lost any chance the Labour Party had of winning, when he has time on his hands in 2 months.. no doubt he will be able to work on his " do up " of a house.. spare me !!

[croesus]

No Cunliffe is a phony.. Shearer was better

Internet Mana are hypocrites

Winnie... Mr Xenophopia

Greens.. run by a dodgy little Aussie Socialist

Craig.... disturbing

United.. silly haircuts and Bow ties

Jamie Whyte.. not sure, but loved the way he cut that pinko Espiner to shreds on Morning Report last week


Has to be National

[Xerof]

Someone please correct me if I am misunderstanding but aren't the fishing groups largely aggrieved at the demolishment of benthic protection areas due to CRP's proposed mining location? Eliminating that mining block from the EPA application does not do anything with regards to BPA's that were established to create long term sustainable fisheries for NZ as the mining area and BPA still overlap? Underlying the BPA's are laws which govern the fishing industry and no nets are allowed to be within 50m of the sea floor etc. There seems to be an anomaly within the law that the area can be mined and is something that the fishing industry will fight hard to uphold (as they were the ones who self goverened their own industry by creating these areas along with MPI back in 2007). I would not be surprised if this becomes somewhat of a legal battle regarding those grounds even if CRP is successful and the $bn fishing industry has a lot of resources and I imagine will fight to the bitter end.



*Still watching from the sidelines as I find the process interesting, with no intent of ever investing.

Intel, your understanding is correct - no fishing within 50m of the seabed, but mining and drilling are permitted. By the way, nor is killing of coral permitted, without a permit.

National want these industries to proceed, although they won't aggressively say it until post-election. Assuming they are returned to office, good luck with having legislation changed to ban mining and drilling.

[Intel]

Intel, your understanding is correct - no fishing within 50m of the seabed, but mining and drilling are permitted. By the way, nor is killing of coral permitted, without a permit.

National want these industries to proceed, although they won't aggressively say it until post-election. Assuming they are returned to office, good luck with having legislation changed to ban mining and drilling.

Thanks Xxerof

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2007/0308/latest/whole.html#DLM973975

This is worth a read (I amn no lawyer by the way) and details the direct exclusion of dredging within a Benthic Protection area and therefore making it an offence. Would CRP's application need a law to be changed to proceed (any lawyers input would be appreciated). Also I am unable to comment on how this law has been treated in their application for mining consent or with the EPA.

"CRP’s operations have occurred (prospecting only), and will occur in the future, within a benthic

protection area (BPA) established via the Fisheries (Benthic Protection Act) Regulations 2007 (BPA

Regulations). The BPAs were established by Government, in conjunction with the fishing industry, to

protect marine biodiversity within un-fished areas of the EEZ from bottom trawling and dredging

from fishing vessels.

There are two BPAs on the Chatham Rise, and the Mid Chatham Rise BPA is of direct relevance to

CRP as it includes part of
CRP’s prospecting and proposed mining licence areas (Figure 1). The

Schedule to the BPA Regulations described the BPA as:


“Mid Chatham Rise: A box covering the area commencing at 43°10′S 177°40′E; then heading

in a generally easterly direction directly to
43°33′S 179°25′W; then heading in a southerly

direction directly to 43°53′S 179°25′W; then heading in a generally westerly direction directly

to 43°30′S 177°40′E; then heading in a northerly direction directly to the point of

commencement”.
This BPA covers a total area of 8,732 km2.

Section 7 of the BPA Regulations states that
“No person may use a dredge10 within any benthic

protection area”.
In addition, sections 8 and 9 place restrictions on the use of trawl nets within the

lower and upper buffer zones (i.e., generally between 50 to 100 m above the seabed) above any

BPA.

These restrictions and prohibitions have been established under the Fisheries Act and apply only to

fishing activities.
They do not apply to CRP’s proposed mining operation."

That is CRP's overview of the regulations.... Somewhat of a loop hole

[Xerof]

No lawyer either, but this is useful info from the EPA site - submission from MPI. I agree it's a loophole, but one which is going to involve negotiation and concessions. Also, the submission from The Crown is a 'good' read - and, to me at least, there are no insurmountable barriers raised, although the proposed conditions to apply if the EPA is "of a mind to approve", are extensive. But probably nothing the operator hasn't had to comply with in other parts of the world



http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/EEZ000006/EEZ000006_Section_44_Response_Ministry_for_Primary _Industries.pdf

end of page 3 into page 4 confirms the Act applies ONLY to fishing

Thats all I'm going to produce on the matter - I have only had a cursory skim of the documents on the EPA website - MAC is far more informed than I, so I shall exit stage right

[MAC]

I’m no laywer either Xerof, but would offer some observations, if anyone requires independent legal advice they should seek it out.

CRP have already been lawfully granted a mining permit under the Crown minerals Act (1991).

There are 38 marine reserves within New Zealand territorial waters, all are governed by the Marine Reserves Act (1971). The CRP application area is not geographically located within a marine reserve area and does not overlap a marine reserve area.

There are geographic benthic areas on the Chatham Rise which have specific regulations for the control of the fishing industry as governed by the Fisheries Act (1996).

The purpose of the recently legislated Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Act (2012) is to “promote the sustainable management of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf”.

It is this new EEZ legislation that empowers the EPA to grant marine consents and apply associated conditions for controlling marine mining, amongst other activities, within New Zealand territorial waters.

>>> There are presently regulations governing what the fishing industry may do on the Chatham Rise under the Fisheries Act (1996).

>>> It is possible that there may soon also be marine consent conditions governing what CRP may do on the Chatham rise, as governed under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Act (2012).

My understanding is that there is no legislation that geographically excludes the activities of one marine industry over any other marine industry on the Chatham Rise.

[easy money]

Well good volumes going through today..over 100.000 so far...big buyer wanting 200.000 at 22 cnts...someone is building a stake for sure...Aim listing starts this Friday I believe.

[Intel]

If you were a larger investor waiting to buy off a book build on the AIM, why would you not want to snap up the loose change on the NZAX. The book build has a floor at NZ$0.25, AIM listing is due next week.

I know the answer to this (spoke to someone today about the aim market). They would be stupid to pay 22c in NZ when they can buy in the UK for 25c as you get an immediate 30% tax break for purchasing shares on teh AIM market. Yup thats right! 30%, pretty amazing huh. (Well im amazed anyway)

Google "A guide to Aim UK TAX Benefits pdf"

Its a great incentive for investment in start up / high risk ventures as you can actually limit your downside risk to (1 - 30%) * (1 - marginal tax rate) so for the highest income earners that are on 50% tax, they will only ever loose 35% of their capital.

[Intel]

And I am also unsure what that means for Arbitrage between the two... If they are paying 25c and get a 30% tax gain straight away, they will still be in the money if CRP NZ tracks down to 17.5c...

[sommelier]

I can't find any LSE share forums, does anyone know of any?

[sommelier]

AIM listing has been put off for another three days. Now listing on Monday the 11th.

[Joshuatree]

And I am also unsure what that means for Arbitrage between the two... If they are paying 25c and get a 30% tax gain straight away, they will still be in the money if CRP NZ tracks down to 17.5c...


Enjoying your unbiased balancing, facts Intel. Thankyou

[barleeni]

My ignorance might be about to be revealed... but anyhow... I was wondering with the new UK listing where do the actual shares on offer in the UK come from? Are they somehow tied back to what's available from the NZX, or is this effectively a new offering / capital raising event? If it is a new capital raising, does that mean that the value of the shares on the NZX are effectively being diluted? (more shares on offer, but still divisible by the same market cap?)

[MAC]

My ignorance might be about to be revealed... but anyhow... I was wondering with the new UK listing where do the actual shares on offer in the UK come from? Are they somehow tied back to what's available from the NZX, or is this effectively a new offering / capital raising event? If it is a new capital raising, does that mean that the value of the shares on the NZX are effectively being diluted? (more shares on offer, but still divisible by the same market cap?)

Hi Barleeni, CRP plan to raise circa NZ$6-8M on the AIM exchange, it is not a new development, the company has always required a final capital round, it should be the last one required now for the company prior to revenues arising from operational mining.

Yes, there will be a dilution as always with capital raisings, 20% or so in this case. The good news is that the associated book build has a NZ$0.25 floor, so any dilution is likely to be nicely offset by a premium paid to the present share price (NZ$0.22) of at least 14%, possibly more than that if there is competition for a last chance large holding.

Trust this assists, kind regards, Mac

[Xerof]

AIM listing has been put off for another three days. Now listing on Monday the 11th.

Really? 3 months, not 3 days

[sommelier]

Really? 3 months, not 3 days
Maybe that's their idea of a joke? On the 8th of August (when I posted that), londonstockexchange.com/aim had altered their listing schedule for CRP from 08 August 2014 to 11 August 2014. The latest nzx.com announcement was this morning. Shows that the UK investors aren't suckers.

[Joshuatree]

From the NZX announcement “As a result sufficient funds are being raised to meet the company’s needs for the next few months.”
Existing shareholders will have the opportunity to participate at the same price as private placements being made."

My sentiment: Far too risky, project wise, management wise, permit wise.

[MAC]

From the NZX announcement “As a result sufficient funds are being raised to meet the company’s needs for the next few months.”
Existing shareholders will have the opportunity to participate at the same price as private placements being made."

My sentiment: Far too risky, project wise, management wise, permit wise.

Well of course, that would be the view of a self acknowledged bitter and twisted and rather biased former losing shareholder of WID.

For almost all others its really very good news, a much much lower dilution and it shows as a sign of confidence to work through the marine consent process now without financial issue.

I'm picking that the large buyer we've seen over the last few weeks has made an off market offer to CRP, a large enough holding to carry the venture forward for now.

[Joshuatree]

My disclosure is clear and posted; whats yours.?My agenda is to warn people of RISK. Yours is about making money and you are in deep? So of course with all your well informed posts:) you want as many people on board with you don't you ; of course.If it pays off , great. But i believe it is a GAMBLE not an INVESTMENT.If your ship full of fertilizer goes down with the punters being sucked down, will you do the honourable and go with it?. Will you cover fellow punters who follow the convincing tipster.J Or will you jump off onto a wizzboat:cool:

[MAC]

Ha, it's a little early but someone please pass me a Tui, the thread knows your agenda very well Joshuatree.

But since you asked, I have a small shareholding in CRP, well diversified as the high risk/reward component of my portfolio. I'm content with the efficacy of the venture, the margins and the risks.

I don't mind stepping in with the odd post to provide a balance on the thread perhaps representing the overwhelming quiet majority of content and patient investors.

CRP may or may not be provided a marine consent, I think probably so, we will see in three month’s time, as it turns out it won’t be too late for you to invest after all, but you will probably even then still be a bitter fellow I anticipate, hope you can prove me wrong.

[goldfish]

For almost all others its really very good news, a much much lower dilution and it shows as a sign of confidence to work through the marine consent process now without financial issue.

I'm picking that the large buyer we've seen over the last few weeks has made an off market offer to CRP a large enough holding to carry the venture forward for now.

I think they could go out of business and you would still say its good news, seriously i have never seen you be critical at all about a stock you own.

And what big buyer is that? There was a couple lots if 100k that went through that isnt a big buyer.

Im glad i pulled out of this one, risk keeps getting higher ever day, Iwi and natives opposing it after chriscastle said they where supporting it, conceding defeat to the fishing industry and now no listing, i guess there wasnt nearly enough interest for new capital with the hugely overzelous EPA roadblock infront of them.

[MAC]

Sorry to hear that Goldfish, yes I am positive about the companies I'm invested in or else well I wouldn’t hold them, although I did sell my SUM holding recently if you check my constructive posts there as to why.

Resource consenting, marine consenting too now is always thwart with anxiety, it’s a process that gives everybody with an interest a vocal say, and so it should, we live in a democracy.

The glass half full view, as a balance, is that there are very few opposing submissions to work through in this instance. Nearly all consents are granted in some form with agreed conditions arising from considered compromise which will never satisfy all but which allow the country to move forward, let’s see, only three months to go.

[Joshuatree]

Yes my Agenda is clear. Im glad you have disclosed that you only have a small holding(i will give you the benefit of the doubt) and it plays a little part in your diversified risk/reward portfolio; that is good advice:).
Decide for yourselves whether CRP is a GAMBLE or an INVESTMENT. An investment is something i plan to profit from with lower risk. a gamble is where I'm prepared to lose the lot for a bigger(maybe) gain . I buy a lotto ticket once or twice a year, cheap thrills. I look at CRP similarly but its not worth buying few lines in imo.:(

[goldfish]

Fair enough, i do hope that i am wrong, although not invested anymore i hope it does get the green light from the epa, the whole underwater mining fascinates me.

[winner69]

Fair enough, i do hope that i am wrong, although not invested anymore i hope it does get the green light from the epa, the whole underwater mining fascinates me.

Goldfish ....hope you safe in your little tank and not swimming around the Chatham Rise

[BlackPeter]

Yes my Agenda is clear. Im glad you have disclosed that you only have a small holding(i will give you the benefit of the doubt) and it plays a little part in your diversified risk/reward portfolio; that is good advice:).
Decide for yourselves whether CRP is a GAMBLE or an INVESTMENT. An investment is something i plan to profit from with lower risk. a gamble is where I'm prepared to lose the lot for a bigger(maybe) gain . I buy a lotto ticket once or twice a year, cheap thrills. I look at CRP similarly but its not worth buying few lines in imo.:(

Hi JT, interesting definition of an investment. If you look at wikipedia, than a gamble would be an investment as well:


In finance, investment is putting money into an asset with the expectation of capital appreciation, dividends, and/or interest earnings. This may or may not be backed by research and analysis. Most or all forms of investment involve some form of risk, such as investment in equities, property, and even fixed interest securities which are subject, among other things, to inflation risk. It is indispensable for project investors to identify and manage the risks related to the investment.


However - I understand what you are saying, and agree. CRP is high risk and (if we trust for a moment the Edison report) might be high gain. The main options for the company I see are:

Option 1: The environmental consent fall through - share holders loose their investment and Chris Castle needs to find (again) another investment vehicle to live off (handsomely).

Option 2: Consent goes through, technical risks are in my view manageable - but the phosphate price moves into the wrong direction. CRP may or may not survive, but delivers little gain (other than for directors).

Option 3: Consent goes through and company is profitable as per Edison report. Share price 8-folds within (say) 3 years (turning 22 cents into the by Edison predicted $1.76). Everybody happy and celebrating.

Now - if you give option 3 a chance of say 20% (i.e. one in five), than CRP would be a really good investment (returning >16%) assuming you spread your risk overall wide enough to cater for the likelihood of option 1 or 2 coming true. Obviously, if you assess its chance of success larger than one in five, than the returns are still better.

For myself I decided that so far its worth the investment gamble - and hold a small amount in my high risk portfolio.

However - DYOR and do your own risk analysis - this is certainly not a stock to invest money in one can't afford to loose!

[croesus]

Its obvious some of these negative posters are Forest and Bird ... Pinko Green types..

Buoyed after their Bathhurst and Ironsands success...

One can but pity them.

[barleeni]

Negative spin on the title perhaps, but nothing really to negative (apart from 3 more weeks of waiting for the go no-go)

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/10372242/Consent-issues-delay-listing

[traderdude]

Hi guys, any ideas around what discount on the next capital raising will look like? Its a real pain these consenting decisions take so long

[BlackPeter]

Hi guys, any ideas around what discount on the next capital raising will look like? Its a real pain these consenting decisions take so long

Just guessing, but looking at the share price (and the latest successful capital rising) it might make sense to price the rights similar to last capital raising - i.e. around 15 cents. At that stage the SP was between 20 and 25 cents as well.

[MAC]

I don’t think another discounted rights issue is being proposed, the way I interpreted the announcement is that there are some larger private placements presently in process and that existing shareholders, including maybe small shareholders also, how small, who knows, may also participate.

You would probably need to contact your broker, or CRP directly perhaps, for an off market trade, probably one maybe two cents off present SP.

https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/198160.pdf

[Xerof]

I'd pick a small SPP for retail MAC, once they have squared away most of what they need to get through the next 4 months to soph's. They are not able to make private placements to non-soph's - Securities Act and all that

[goldfish]

The cynic in me wonders if they just need capital to pay themselves there high fees etc.
Surely they could wait till they find out if they have consent.

[MAC]

I'd pick a small SPP for retail MAC, once they have squared away most of what they need to get through the next 4 months to soph's. They are not able to make private placements to non-soph's - Securities Act and all that

That is a good point Xerof, perhaps the only option then for small investors remains to buy on the NZX for now, or, well on the AIM after the marine consent process.

I think the soph criteria is a portfolio wealth of $2M or a certified letter from a chartered accountant from recollection, if they would actually sign one.

[edc]

http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/chatham_rock_phosphate/Pages/default.aspx

see for summary:

http://news.msn.co.nz/nationalnews/8892547/blow-for-chatham-rise-phosphate-mining

Consent doesn't look good - as I was speculating I'm worried, don't know what more informed people think?

[winner69]

And there's the biggest, red'est flag of them all...

Don't know if they bothered read my submission, if nothing else its been counted anyway

[sommelier]

Yeap, there it is. If you submitted you would have gotten an e-mail today with the list of summarising every individual submission. And your name will be on there.

[MAC]

Reads like a giant 165 page school science project report, but no real surprises.

They want even yet more information, wow no surprise there too, at the end of this process the EPA will have enough information to build a new Chatham Rise from a sub atomic level.

The EPA staff are not currently able to recommend granting, doubt they will ever support anything, they work at the EPA to be professional environmental do gooders after all, but they did seem to put an enormous amount of work into the conditions should the DMC choose to grant a consent.

I think the ultimate end game is likely to be the granting of a consent with the 47 conditions put forward by CRP, plus a few more for measure from the EPA staff, and an ongoing operational adaptive management programme to be paid for by CRP and administered by the EPA.

16 RECOMMENDATION

“The EPA staff are not currently able to recommend granting this marine consent on the face of CRP’s application as it stands, but recognise that there is more information to be provided, which may change our view. Should the DMC be of the mind to grant the consent subject to conditions, after taking into account any further responses to FIR by CRP, applicant’s and submitter’s evidence, expert conferencing and any other relevant information, we have attached a preliminary set of draft conditions to this report as a starting point (see Appendix 6). If deemed appropriate, the DMC may wish to commission the EPA staff to provide a final set of conditions or further assessment of the information yet to be provided.”

[goldfish]

Reads like a giant 165 page school science project report, but no real surprises.

They want even yet more information, wow no surprise there too, at the end of this process the EPA will have enough information to build a new Chatham Rise from a sub atomic level.

The EPA staff are not currently able to recommend granting, doubt they will ever support anything, they work at the EPA to be professional environmental do gooders after all, but they did seem to put an enormous amount of work into the conditions should the DMC choose to grant a consent.

I think the ultimate end game is likely to be the granting of a consent with the 47 conditions put forward by CRP, plus a few more for measure from the EPA staff, and an ongoing operational adaptive management programme to be paid for by CRP and administered by the EPA.

16 RECOMMENDATION

“The EPA staff are not currently able to recommend granting this marine consent on the face of CRP’s application as it stands, but recognise that there is more information to be provided, which may change our view. Should the DMC be of the mind to grant the consent subject to conditions, after taking into account any further responses to FIR by CRP, applicant’s and submitter’s evidence, expert conferencing and any other relevant information, we have attached a preliminary set of draft conditions to this report as a starting point (see Appendix 6). If deemed appropriate, the DMC may wish to commission the EPA staff to provide a final set of conditions or further assessment of the information yet to be provided.”

Yes well said mac, unfortunetly the bar has been set do high that i cant see the epa granting anything, you would have to show that no damage will be done to even the smallest microbes to be able to mine anything. I really despair sometimes.
Glad i pulled out after reading what the epa required further in there information.
Hopefully the government will disband them.
And im all for protecting the environment but the epa is ridiculous.

[Xerof]

So, which submission will carry more weight - the staffers at EPA, who couldn't wait for the FIR's to be replied to, before taking the easy way out, or the Crown, who submit a neutral offering, with helpful and reasonable suggestions on how to ameliorate the (CRP) identified issues?

This will go the full distance on appeal either way. Not the best of news today for CRPers, (who will be CRPing), but by no means dead and buried.

[goldfish]

Lets get real here, all that was going to happen was a plume of mud would slowly settle back down, thats it a plume of mud, what do they think happens everytime theres a storm . We be living in caves still if these clowns had there way.

[sommelier]

Goldfish, if you are a holder like a lot of us are it would pay to be less biased. The staff were most concerned with the complete destruction of the sea floor on the way up, including a list of molluscs and corals, some of which may be rare. That combined with 100 pages of 'uncertainties' resulted in their recommendation. Tenuous claims by CRP such as 'increasing biodiversity' don't help us gain credence. Let's look at both sides, analyse and discuss. I still believe that the environmental effects can be shown to be limited. It is clear that the EPA staff do not take the 'small' size of the area as a % of the total rise as a mitigating factor, which most of the posters here and 43% of the supporting submissions believe. This will be a key difference between the EPAs necessary approach and the DMCs considerations. The report focuses on the scope of possible effects and the scope of the benefits. There is no analysis of the extent of benefits or the extent of effects in the report, and that (along with risk) is what the DMC is ultimately weighing up.

[goldfish]

Im not a shareholder anymore, once i realised the hoops that crp had to go through i realised even if they spent billions and could account for every living thing from bacteria up that lives in the mud down there they still would not be allowed. So i see the main bias is from the epa.

[croesus]

So why are dozens of trawlers, towing nets heavily weighted allowed to ride rough shod over hundreds of square kilometres of ocean floor. all around the coast ( apart from Marine Reserves ) every day of the year ?

[nextbigthing]

This seems like the argument, if alcohol was invented now it would never be legal.

[traderdude]

See Chris Castle has responded in an announcement this morning. I need to have a quick read but does anyone know if the report is based on info prior to August 5 or after? ie does it take into account the reduction in permit exploration size?

[traderdude]

Ahh yes just the 5,207km

[Balance]

Good on CC for trying but this kind of project is best suited for companies with deep pockets and mining expertise.

Meanwhile, CC will continue to get his $300,000 a year consultancy fees.

[goldfish]

Good on CC for trying but this kind of project is best suited for companies with deep pockets and mining expertise.

Meanwhile, CC will continue to get his $300,000 a year consultancy fees.

I dont think any pockets are deep enough to show what the epa wants. Guess its back to spreading nitrogen all over pastures and contaminating rivers with runoff, at least we dont have a plume of mud in the middle of nowhere, a plume my god we cant have a mud plume the dolphins and seals will be slaughtered, its all jonkeys fault, blah blah blah. (Quoting some of gareth hughes submission, dolphins n jk).

[sommelier]

Seeing that this mornings announcement was labelled 'price sensitive' does have me worried about the arrogance of the man.

[easy money]

Seeing that this mornings announcement was labelled 'price sensitive' does have me worried about the arrogance of the man.

only one buyer left....near total collapse....

[Balance]

There is an open article on the nbr website for those interested.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/blow-chatham-rise-phosphate-mining-bid-bd-161020

Whos going to get out at 2c?

CC will still get his $300K a year until sp is 1c?

Then he will propose a 100 for 1 split when the sp is 1c.

[BlackPeter]

only one buyer left....near total collapse....

amazing depth - nearly $6k changed hands ... and it looks like the price is coming back again.

Still - feels funny how easy some (rogue?) staff in the Economic Put-down Authority (EPA) can manipulate the share price without the need to observe NZX rules.

[edc]

Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd has been aware since 10 July 2014 of the release of the EPA Staff Report. This is the timeline:
· The issuing of the Staff Report (which was originally scheduled for 4 August) was flagged in the Hearing Procedures issued by the Decision-making Committee on 10 July. The Hearing Procedures were published on our website on 10 July 2014.
· On 4 August, CRP requested a two week extension for release of the Staff Report. This was also published on our website.
· On 11 August, the request for a delay in issuing the Staff Report was agreed. A minute saying the staff report would be issued on 18 August was emailed to all parties and published on our website.
· The EPA yesterday gave CRP a courtesy call half an hour prior to the posting of the report on the website – to say it would be published shortly.
· At no stage did CRP ask for the report to be issued in non-trading hours.

All information relating to the CRP application is available here:http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/chatham_rock_phosphate/Pages/default.aspx

The background to the Staff Report is as follows:
The marine consent process allows the EPA to obtain advice on any aspect of a marine consent application or on an activity that is associated with it. The compilation of a Staff Report is an input into the process. The same process was followed with the Trans-Tasman Resources application. As mentioned in the Staff Report, (see the Recommendation on page 125) “…the Decision-making Committee may wish to commission the EPA staff to provide a final set of conditions or further assessment of the information yet to be provided.”

The EPA has issued a media release which explains that the report is an ‘input’ into the process – and that a final decision is yet to be made. The release is available at this link:
http://www.epa.govt.nz/news/epa-media-releases/Pages/EPA-issues-preliminary-report-on-Chatham-Rock-Phosphate-application.aspx

I have also provided a link to the criteria upon which the Decision-making Committee must base its decision.
http://www.epa.govt.nz/eez/EEZ000007/EEZ000007_MDD024_Information_Sheet_Decision_making _Criteria.pdf


As a private "investor", nay gambler/speculator I emailed the EPA explaining the 15 delay in quotes and that ASB requires phone orders for CRP on NZXA impacted on my ability to make a timely informed decision.

[MAC]

Surprised a bit by the CRP reaction, they shouldn't be poking the EPA in the eye publically IMO, but I suppose they didn’t get an opportunity to put a trading halt in place.

That fellow who bought at 8c when the SP was down 60%, if CRP get the marine consent and the SP de-risks a bit and goes to $1.50, he would make 1,775% in four months. Shame he probably only got 4 shares or something, but still.

[easy money]

Surprised a bit by the CRP reaction, they shouldn't be poking the EPA in the eye publically IMO, but I suppose they didn’t get an opportunity to put a trading halt in place.

That fellow who bought at 8c when the SP was down 60%, if CRP get the marine consent and the SP de-risks a bit and goes to $1.50, he would make 1,775% in four months. Shame he probably only got 4 shares or something, but still.
I
I wonder if any one from the EPA has been buying today.

[Roberto]

Wow, a (quite rightly) damning account of the EPA from CC: https://www.nzx.com/companies/CRP/announcements/254273.

[artemis]

"A cursory look shows it is riddled with mistakes and fails to even consider much of the information received more recently. Had this information been assessed it would have addressed many of the issues raised by the report's authors." .... Dene Biddlecombe, Chairman, Aorere Resources.

CRP and AOR would have to have more in depth knowledge of the issues than the EPA, surely, since they have been working on it for years. "Riddled with mistakes" is damning if it is shown to be the case, and the weasel words around 'input to the process' will not help the EPA IMO. The structure of the TTR decision - black and white, yes or no, appeal on points of law only - is a concern though. If they give CRP a 'no' in the same way, you'd have to think their credibility is on the line.

[croesus]

Chris must have been a batsman when he played Cricket.. I applaud this " going on the front foot " approach

Suspect the EPA are now wide open to legal action, if the permit not issued.

[MAC]

AOR invest further in CRP.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1408/S00801/aorere-invests-in-chatham-rock-phosphate.htm

“We think it’s the best investment we can make for our shareholders and are delighted it will enable Aorere to build up its holding.”

[Xerof]

A bit incestous isn't it? If this was always the plan, it should have been stated in the CR docs, which instead said:

Aorere has now identified some new projects which it believes have considerable potential. Aorere’s strategy for these prospects is to fund the exploration and potentially open these projects to joint venture participation. To complement Aorere’s investments in Mosman and Chatham Rock Phosphate, the Board are assessing a small number of New Zealand based minerals prospects, all of which are still at an early stage.

at least they will come at a discount....10cents?

[MAC]

Well I guess when an organisation like the EPA advertise for staff, they probably do attract closet fringe thinkers with life agendas. Really though EPA management need to step up, show some balls and actually manage their people.

Heads could easily roll now at the EPA I reckon after both this and the Trans Tasman debacle.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1408/S00823/crp-concerned-at-potential-for-bias-in-epa-staff-report.htm

[BlackPeter]

Heads could easily roll now at the EPA I reckon after both this and the Trans Tasman debacle.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1408/S00823/crp-concerned-at-potential-for-bias-in-epa-staff-report.htm

Nice to think ... but then - how do they say "crows do not pick crows eyes".

The EPA is a bureaucratic monster - and the most funny thing is - it is the creation of the current government. Both the people who created this monster (National & Co, just ACT voted against creating them) - and the supervisors who hired the analysts with hidden agendas are unlikely to turn now against their own.

I am open to pleasant surprises, but I don't hold my breath ...

[MAC]

Nice to think ... but then - how do they say "crows do not pick crows eyes".

The EPA is a bureaucratic monster - and the most funny thing is - it is the creation of the current government. Both the people who created this monster (National & Co, just ACT voted against creating them) - and the supervisors who hired the analysts with hidden agendas are unlikely to turn now against their own.

I am open to pleasant surprises, but I don't hold my breath ...

One could write a book on civil servant psychology, although if one reads the Crown submission, it does seem to suggest, in a civil service sort of way, that they think the EPA need to get there s**t together. Perhaps they are on notice of some sorts at least. My suspicion is that the powers that be may well be watching and taking further notes.

A small hand full of ‘yes minister’ types could well ultimately decide and let the DMC know what they must do, who knows.

[BlackPeter]

Good to see Aorere and Chris Castle put their own money into the capital raising ... i.e. looks like they are optimistic. I guess the price for the additional shares (12 cents) is something we can thank the EPA for. Conspiracy theories, anybody?

https://www.nzx.com/companies/CRP/announcements/254357
https://www.nzx.com/companies/CRP/announcements/254359
https://www.nzx.com/companies/CRP/announcements/254426

[MAC]

Good to see Aorere and Chris Castle put their own money into the capital raising ... i.e. looks like they are optimistic. I guess the price for the additional shares (12 cents) is something we can thank the EPA for. Conspiracy theories, anybody?

https://www.nzx.com/companies/CRP/announcements/254357
https://www.nzx.com/companies/CRP/announcements/254359
https://www.nzx.com/companies/CRP/announcements/254426

I’m not sure about any Area 51 stuff going on BlackPeter, I doubt if anyone at the EPA would have been deliberately ambiguous for the purposes of buying CRP cheap, they’re just civil servants doing what they do, positioning amongst themselves, EPA staff, DMC, Crown staff.

It is good to see the Aorere board approving the investment I reckon and backing the company, and Chris Castle too putting some of that extraordinary income we provide him back into the company.

It does show a little insider confidence a few months from the announcement. Be even better if we saw some independent directors buying, perhaps that’s next.

[BlackPeter]

state of the game - article in todays press:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/10436122/Politics-of-mining-keep-digging?cid=edm:stuff:dailyheadlines

[MAC]

state of the game - article in todays press:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/opinion-analysis/10436122/Politics-of-mining-keep-digging?cid=edm:stuff:dailyheadlines

Well it is pleasing actually to see the larger investors having a say, tempted to write a nice albeit humble letter to Simon Bridges and Steven Joyce myself, in fact I might even just do that.

"The (EPA staff) report is likely to have the effect of closing access to international capital markets for future mining developments in New Zealand's EEZ if the decision-making committee acts in agreement with the EPA's staff," wrote Scott Vincent of Baltimore-based Green River Asset Management, a major shareholder in CRP, in an email to Energy Minister Simon Bridges.”

[artemis]

Perhaps not surprisingly the resources sector is not too happy with the EPA. And reading between the lines neither is Simon Bridges. The link below is a report of his speech this week at AUSIMM, in which he says, inter alia:

"Bridges said he had “some empathy” with companies like Chatham Rock Phosphate, where an EPA staff report was released last week, on its application to mine the Chatham Rise seabed, which carried news which depressed its stock price about 60%, and prompted a flurry of allegations and counter-claims between Chatham and the EPA. Bridges suggested there should be “time limits and caps” to application periods, of four to six months. He said, however, “the wily regulators” could go back and ask for more information; which would push out time frames. “If it's the same in a year - I'll certainly seek to do something about that,” he said.

http://www.nzresources.com/showarticle.aspx?id=6214&guid=30006214

The language is rather 'yes minister' but sounds to me like the EPA is on notice.

Think I saw that the EPA had investigated the claim of possible bias in the production of the staff report and found none as it had been extensively peer reviewed. But they would say that, wouldn't they.

[MAC]

Perhaps not surprisingly the resources sector is not too happy with the EPA. And reading between the lines neither is Simon Bridges. The link below is a report of his speech this week at AUSIMM, in which he says, inter alia:

"Bridges said he had “some empathy” with companies like Chatham Rock Phosphate, where an EPA staff report was released last week, on its application to mine the Chatham Rise seabed, which carried news which depressed its stock price about 60%, and prompted a flurry of allegations and counter-claims between Chatham and the EPA. Bridges suggested there should be “time limits and caps” to application periods, of four to six months. He said, however, “the wily regulators” could go back and ask for more information; which would push out time frames. “If it's the same in a year - I'll certainly seek to do something about that,” he said.

http://www.nzresources.com/showarticle.aspx?id=6214&guid=30006214

The language is rather 'yes minister' but sounds to me like the EPA is on notice.

Think I saw that the EPA had investigated the claim of possible bias in the production of the staff report and found none as it had been extensively peer reviewed. But they would say that, wouldn't they.

That's pleasing Artemis, hopefully indicative of any corridor conversation and influence on the present circumstance. I received a reply to my email too and within the hour;

Dear Mac

On behalf of Hon Simon Bridges, Minister of Energy and Resources, thank you for your email regarding the Environmental Protection Authority.

Your email has been placed before the Minister for his information and your comments have been noted. As the matter you have raised falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for the Environment, your email has been forwarded to the office of Hon Amy Adams for their consideration and response.

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

Kind regards,

[Xerof]

What did you say in your email MAC? (If you wouldn't mind sharing)

[MAC]

What did you say in your email MAC? (If you wouldn't mind sharing)

I'd rather keep that to myself actually, just as a matter of trust, but I would recommend to others to write to the MP's.

[BlackPeter]

I'd rather keep that to myself actually, just as a matter of trust, but I would recommend to others to write to the MP's.

Done - wrote over the weekend to my local MP (who happens to be the environmental minister). No answer yet, but maybe we need to cut her during the election campaign a bit of slack. Sounds like they are all in damage control (but this would be a different thread).

Shall report if I get any substantial response.

[BlackPeter]

2 for 17 shares rights issue announced:

12 cents per new share (including a free CRPOB option thrown in).

Must be a bargain, if CRP manages to get the environmental consent.

Discl: holding a small parcel of CRP shares

[BlackPeter]

I guess - doing the AIM capital raising now would have meant a still much worse dilution (given that they are after more capital). Probably a sensible decision not to try it in the current climate.

[edc]

https://www.nzx.com/markets/NZAX/securities/CRP

Who is taking up the rights issue?

[MAC]

https://www.nzx.com/markets/NZAX/securities/CRP

Who is taking up the rights issue?

Someone suggested that the CRPOB options expiry may get extended from the granting of the marine consent +91 days, to, granting of the marine consent + 1 year. Although I can’t find a reference.

While I think the SP will go well over $0.688, probably closer to the Edison valuation upon consent granting, an extra year to play with might still be nice.

If so then I’ll take it up at 12c, the reward is higher as is the risk if one believes the EPA staff. The risk though is partly mitigated by the options. ie: you pay for half your shares before the marine consent half after.

I would anticipate that this rights issue will probably be underwritten, just like the last one, so CRP should get all the cash they need, and, this should be the last capital raising required. It’s all on market(s) from here.

[BlackPeter]

https://www.nzx.com/markets/NZAX/securities/CRP

Who is taking up the rights issue?

Not sure yet, but I probably will. If we believe the Edison estimate, and if we assume that the project has a 25% chance to succeed (just my guts - and finding a round number smaller than 50%), than 12 cents per share is a good price.

[MAC]

I’ve found something quite interesting BlackPeter in reading through the enormous volumes of EPA docs;

There have been several valuations of Chatham Rock made over a few years, the most recent was performed very recently by Daniel Stewart who are the AIM brokers, in April this year.

“In April 2014, Daniel Stewart & Co were appointed Nominated Advisers and Joint Brokers in respect of CRP’s proposed listing on the London AIM market. In conjunction with this, an independent report was prepared by Daniel Stewart & Co's resources analyst who valued the project at approximately USD 223 million (NZD 256 million).

http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/EEZ000006/EEZ000006_01AppEvidence_Castle_Chris_CRP_overview. pdf

With 200M shares on issue after this coming probably last capital raising, this provides their valuation at $1.30

Slightly lower than the Edison valuation at $1.76 per share, however brokers IMO are not as independent, it’s in the interests of their cliental to be a bit low.

Still, it’s very good to see some further open market validation and I’m quite comfortable with my own DCF effort at $1.70.

DYOR

[Joshuatree]

Just a refresher . Fine to have speculative share in the portfolio but don't put the house on it.


Yes my Agenda is clear. Im glad you have disclosed that you (Mac) only have a SMALL holding(i will give you the benefit of the doubt) and it plays a little part in your diversified risk/reward portfolio; that is good advice:).
Decide for yourselves whether CRP is a GAMBLE or an INVESTMENT. An investment is something i plan to profit from with lower risk. a gamble is where I'm prepared to lose the lot for a bigger(maybe) gain . I buy a lotto ticket once or twice a year, cheap thrills. I look at CRP similarly but its not worth buying few lines in imo.:(

[MAC]

“Chatham Rock has been in discussions with a publically quoted company with respect to a potential merger transaction. These discussions are at an early stage, on-going and at present no agreement has been reached - binding or non-binding - on the terms of such a transaction. Should these discussions progress to a documented stage a market announcement will be made giving further details.”

https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/200093.pdf

I would doubt that these M&A discussions are with AOR, they just don’t have the free cash. Subsea are a collective of multiple investors so unlikley, Boskalis have never invested cash, wouldn’t have thought it was the core business of Odyssey they seem to be more interested in the discovery channel stuff.

Could well be one of the big global phosphate miners though.

[sommelier]

There is a high probability that it is AOR and that he is trying to work out a complex share:share loan agreement. Once the EPA finally approves the mining that is the time to buy. It'll take a couple of days for the price to triple, so heaps of time to buy in. Which will get me a great low risk return when it's charging on to $1.30-$1.80 in a year.
Disc: holder.

[Joshuatree]

You can't assume EPA approves this of course; a foolish assumption; I would follow MAC's advice and only have small part of your portfolio ,in such a high risk play.

[MAC]

CRP won’t need any more cash after this rights issue if underwritten, I’ve just calculated that they will have potentially $35M arising from options take up next year also, they will be practically swimming in free cash, way more than they will need operationally.

The merger talk could well be one of these formative alliances too;

“We’ve been thinking ahead to when we are actually in production. A lot of work has already been done on potential markets and we’ve identified at least six countries in Asia that would use our product for four different uses.”

“Managing that work is our Vice President Sales and Strategy Najib Moutia, a Canadian-based Moroccan who for 30 years worked for the world’s biggest phosphate producer in his home country, building its Asia Pacific business from 0 to 90% market share.”

“As part of building those potential customers – and to provide some (positive!) cash flow before we get into production, we’re looking at undertaking some phosphate trading. We’re also testing some rock from companies with whom we are building alliances and considering the best uses for those products.”

https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/198518.pdf

[BlackPeter]

CRPRB going for 2 cents each, which values the CRP share at something like 14 cents (plus a free 68 cent option thrown in) - right?

Just curious - how is it possible, and why would it be sensible to buy 588 CRPRB for 2 cents each (as somebody did this morning)? I thought there is a minimum amount of shares / options you need to trade at NZX. As well - wouldn't it mean for the buyer spending $11.76 for the 588 options plus (as a minimum) of $29,90 for brokerage?

Looks & feels funny, anyway ....

[Xerof]

For the same reason someone, for example, buys $140 of AOR moving the market value by ~18%

some call it window dressing, others call it price manipulation

whichever, it's pathetic, obvious, and actually signals that the "invisible hand" is worried

[MAC]

That's pleasing Artemis, hopefully indicative of any corridor conversation and influence on the present circumstance. I received a reply to my email too and within the hour;

Dear Mac

On behalf of Hon Simon Bridges, Minister of Energy and Resources, thank you for your email regarding the Environmental Protection Authority.

Your email has been placed before the Minister for his information and your comments have been noted. As the matter you have raised falls within the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for the Environment, your email has been forwarded to the office of Hon Amy Adams for their consideration and response.

Thank you again for taking the time to write.

Kind regards,

As an update, my email was forwarded to Amy Adams MP, and onto the EPA, and I have received a response from Rob Forlong, EPA Chief Executive.

I'm pleased with the communication process and again would recommend to all shareholders to write to the pertinent MP's, to my surprise they do seem prepared to at least listen, one would hope that a number of such letters would raise some awareness of relevant issues, from a shareholders perspective, amongst senior management.

[BlackPeter]

As an update, my email was forwarded to Amy Adams MP, and onto the EPA, and I have received a response from Rob Forlong, EPA Chief Executive.

I'm pleased with the communication process and again would recommend to all shareholders to write to the pertinent MP's, to my surprise they do seem prepared to at least listen, one would hope that a number of such letters would raise some awareness of relevant issues, from a shareholders perspective, amongst senior management.

Good on you - I wrote short after I've seen your first post an email to Amy Adams (who happens to be my local MP), expressing my concerns that the process might create public perceptions of EPA bias. So far no response, but given that your email came in earlier than mine, maybe I get my answer this week ...

[blackcap]

Good on you - I wrote short after I've seen your first post an email to Amy Adams (who happens to be my local MP), expressing my concerns that the process might create public perceptions of EPA bias. So far no response, but given that your email came in earlier than mine, maybe I get my answer this week ...

With all respect, I think Amy might be focussing on something other than constituent emails in the next week BlackPeter :)

[BlackPeter]

With all respect, I think Amy might be focussing on something other than constituent emails in the next week BlackPeter :)
You might have a point ... on the other hand, what better time for a politician to appear to be responsive than before the election day?

[MAC]

I’d been holding off for the election before deciding on the rights issue, all the corridor politics and behind the scenes chit chat should all be quite a bit firmer and positive now.

Relatively very low number of opposing submissions, relatively high number in support, environmental investigation groundwork hard yards put in, international experts flying in, economic benefits clear, let’s see now how it goes.

Last capital raising and chance to jump in and those CRPOB options are looking pretty good about here, I’m in for some more now.

[artemis]

I’d been holding off for the election before deciding on the rights issue, all the corridor politics and behind the scenes chit chat should all be quite a bit firmer and positive now. Relatively very low number of opposing submissions, relatively high number in support, environmental investigation groundwork hard yards put in, international experts flying in, economic benefits clear, let’s see now how it goes. Last capital raising and chance to jump in and those CRPOB options are looking pretty good about here, I’m in for some more now.

Still have the EPA incumbents though (for now anyway), and they won't be swayed by who's in government as they rightly can't afford to appear partisan. The EPA staffers report was a setback, perhaps more for the EPA than CRP, but the EPA did come out for the staff. Suppose they had to really.

As I understand it the EPA made a Yes / No decision on TTR with no appeal except on points of law. In a way that's a good thing as it gives clarity and draws a clear line. But these projects are always going to be shades of grey, if for no other reason that there are always some unknowns. If the EPA gave a conditional response the parties could be drawn in to a long and expensive back and forth process, and with possibly no clear decision at the end of it.

[MAC]

There is definitely no certainty, that’s why the share price is at $0.12 and not $1.70 right now, although the EPA do though have to make a clear decision and by December, that’s an EPA process requirement.

I look at it this way Artemis,

If the CRP proposition is close enough for compromise to come into play, and the politics in the background is supportive, then the DMC’s job becomes one of deciding which compromising consent conditions to apply and which to discard.

I also think that is the message the government has provided to the EPA following the TTR debacle, and that is why the Crown submission, although neutral in standing, firmly seems to suggest that there should be a greater focus on conditions and even offers some areas where conditions may be applicable.

My feel is that we will see a marine consent granted with a combination of the conditions proposed by CRP, the Crown and the EPA staff, let’s see.

[bmrm]

I have exposure to CRP through AOR, which is trading well below NTA right now (even with a bit of gravity baring on their Mossman holding). I have considered getting some CRP at these depressed prices, but I still think AOR is the way to go as you get a bit of diversification, but still a massive exposure to CRP, with a nice upside in Mossman.

[MAC]

Don’t recall seeing that one in the EPA staff report or in the Crown submission, if like the resource consent process, the intent of the conditions is not to penalise the company economically or financially, they are intended to ensure the CRP environmental plan does not get altered over time without further application, and so that adequate environmental monitoring is performed to the satisfaction of the EPA.

We might see CRP have to incur a couple of million in adaptive management costs each year, or something like that, maybe they will be made to blend product with high trace element composition, but then the CRP plan is to blend a certain percentage anyway, probably lots of sediment concentration and distribution sampling, well they will have a boat on the water anyway, etc.

[youngatheart]

I have exposure to CRP through AOR, which is trading well below NTA right now (even with a bit of gravity baring on their Mossman holding). I have considered getting some CRP at these depressed prices, but I still think AOR is the way to go as you get a bit of diversification, but still a massive exposure to CRP, with a nice upside in Mossman.
I agree with your points there bmrm, another annoying aspect with CRP is that if you are trading via ASB Securities (like me), trades can only happen via phone as they will not permit on-line trading for NZAX stocks - just another barrier to be overcome for CRP - whereas AOR is NZX listed and easily traded.

[MAC]

https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/201137.pdf

[The Grinch]

Look I've only had one lazy left eye on this one (CRP) but that sounds pretty positive, national got back in, share price has halved thanks to our friends at the EPA. Surely now's not a bad time from a risk vs reward point of view to take a punt.

For those a little wiser/better researched on this stock is there any advice, particular area I should poke my noise into this weekend?

Cheers

[MAC]

Look I've only had one lazy left eye on this one (CRP) but that sounds pretty positive, national got back in, share price has halved thanks to our friends at the EPA. Surely now's not a bad time from a risk vs reward point of view to take a punt.

For those a little wiser/better researched on this stock is there any advice, particular area I should poke my noise into this weekend?

Cheers

Grinch, you may like to start with the fact sheet, I would recommend a read of the 2012, 2013 and 2014 Edison reports, the 2013 capital raising document, and mooch around in the CRP website.

kind regards, Mac

http://static.squarespace.com/static/51d24098e4b0d519d0c065f5/t/53ba35e1e4b005446938eab1/1404712417439/CRP-Factsheet-2014-05.pdf

http://www.edisoninvestmentresearch.com/research/report/chatham-rock-phosphate
http://www.edisoninvestmentresearch.com/research/report/chatham-rock-phosphate4
http://www.edisoninvestmentresearch.com/research/report/chatham-rock-phosphate5

http://static.squarespace.com/static/51d24098e4b0d519d0c065f5/t/51d62dcde4b03fbe9da6ec3d/1372990925049/Final_Screen_Chatham_Rock_Phosphate_Prospectus_140 dpi.pdf

[ziggy415]

Look I've only had one lazy left eye on this one (CRP) but that sounds pretty positive, national got back in, share price has halved thanks to our friends at the EPA. Surely now's not a bad time from a risk vs reward point of view to take a punt.

For those a little wiser/better researched on this stock is there any advice, particular area I should poke my noise into this weekend?

Cheers
just remember its a two horse race....one will win and the other will lose...there is no other outcome....

[MAC]

just remember its a two horse race....one will win and the other will lose...there is no other outcome....

Ah, ah, ah, ah, there are three possible outcomes each with different likelihoods;

a) No marine consent is awarded and an appeal is required by CRP

b) A marine consent is awarded, great.

c) A marine consent is awarded with environmental conditions and an agreed adaptive management plan (most likely IMO)

Have a read of the Crown submission and the EPA report Appendix 6

http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/EEZ000006/The_Crown_110189.pdf

http://www.epa.govt.nz/eez/EEZ000006/EEZ000006_CRP_EPA_Staff_Report_WEB_FINAL_Signed_18 _08_2014.pdf

[ziggy415]

Ah, ah, ah, ah, there are three possible outcomes each with different likelihoods;

a) No marine consent is awarded and an appeal is required by CRP

b) A marine consent is awarded, great.

c) A marine consent is awarded with environmental conditions and an agreed adaptive management plan (most likely IMO)

Have a read of the Crown submission and the EPA report Appendix 6

http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/EEZ000006/The_Crown_110189.pdf

http://www.epa.govt.nz/eez/EEZ000006/EEZ000006_CRP_EPA_Staff_Report_WEB_FINAL_Signed_18 _08_2014.pdf
I thought the appeal was only on points of law....Im still a bit skeptical about sucking noddules 400 meters from the surface and so far from shore so any conditions only add to my concerns....still havent bought any chattam shares but do own several Aorere ones...is the decision still on track for november outcome

[BlackPeter]

Look I've only had one lazy left eye on this one (CRP) but that sounds pretty positive, national got back in, share price has halved thanks to our friends at the EPA. Surely now's not a bad time from a risk vs reward point of view to take a punt.

For those a little wiser/better researched on this stock is there any advice, particular area I should poke my noise into this weekend?

Cheers

propose to look into:
a) consent risk
b) technical risk and
c) forecast prices for Phosphates

Discl: chickened out recently due to my assessment of the combination of a + c

[Joshuatree]

just remember its a two horse race....one will win and the other will lose...there is no other outcome....

Agree; win or lose and it aint 50/50; odds are very high so if one wants to gamble ,stick with money you really are prepared to lose and have a small punt unless facts change in ones risk/reward favour.

[sommelier]

There's gonna be something on Tv3 news in the next 10 minutes.

[MAC]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1410/S00041/ttr-agrees-project-is-different-to-chatham-rock-phosphate.htm

Well ok, but perhaps one fairly might just add;

1. We are now certain of a National govt for another three years, perhaps six, not something TTR had as a certainty at the time for the DMC to politic over.

2. CRP only had 200 or so submissions against, TTR had around 4000

3. CRP had 80 submissions for, TTR only had, well a grand total of 8

4. Senior EPA management will absolutely not want to maintain a 100% decline rate, now National have been returned heads could already roll at the EPA, let alone if they declined CRP also.

5. There are absolutely no nimby’s way out there on the Chatham rise directly affected

6. CRP and AOR have a ‘mum & dad’ shareholder base of thousands, politically less easy to poke in the eye. There are way more shareholders than nimby’s to consider.

7. Maori may have fished in TTR’s zone, but not a single Maori or Moriori prior to 1840 had a submarine to do anything 400m deep way out there on the Chatham rise.

8. CRP product actually benefits the NZ environment. It that has up to 80% less runoff, the product is organic and will displace competitive chemical fertilizers. This to me outways all of the effects on the seabed.

[traderdude]

Been a bit quiet on here lately.
I see a couple of Iwi spoke to their submissions on Monday. The transcript's a real boring read.. anyone have any idea whether the EPA will realistically consider all the airy fairy BS?

[MAC]

Been a bit quiet on here lately.
I see a couple of Iwi spoke to their submissions on Monday. The transcript's a real boring read.. anyone have any idea whether the EPA will realistically consider all the airy fairy BS?

No iwi ever had submarines traderdude.

At the end of the day I think it just comes back to the macro level.

A company wants to mine phosphate, New Zealand uses phosphate, the politics are right with the returned government, there are no real NIMBY’s, there were relatively few submissions against, relatively many submissions for, the EPA will not want to maintain a 100% decline record as heads may roll, the EPA have the conciliatory option of awarding with conditions, and the economic benefits to New Zealand are just fine.

The hearing gets right down to the nitty gritty science level, provides everyone with a forum to have their say and vent if need be, but the decision will be made at a managed macro level.

[traderdude]

Cheers for your input MAC.
I'm quite naive around how these processes work and it was a little frightening to think they might consider some of the weirder spiritual reasons in deciding whether to grant. Your comments are reassuring to say the least!

[MAC]

Well I guess the marine consent process is a bit new to everyone, I’m perhaps a little fortunate as I’ve worked in and around the RMA process since it came into being.

Most investors though are not scientists are they, and there is the risk that one of them will come up with some show stopper at the hearing that all the multitudes of CRP engaged experts have missed.

That’s why the SP is at $0.12 right now and not $1.70, investors are not experts and so price in maximum risk as perceived on a layman's basis.

Doesn’t seem to be any show stoppers thus far as far as I can tell.

[NT001]

New development

https://www.nzx.com/companies/CRP/announcements/256697

[easy money]

Well the market seems to like that...up a bit today on good volume..

[easy money]

Now only 2 sellers left...looks like the market is guessing that CRP will gain its permit...

[sommelier]

And it's so close now actions are ruled by FOMO

[Balance]

Anyone ever look at Chris Castle's track record of delivering enhanced shareholders' wealth to investors/shareholders?

[Brain]

This time it will be different Balance:)

[Joshuatree]

Anyone ever look at Chris Castle's track record of delivering enhanced shareholders' wealth to investors/shareholders? Yes and he knows he will always find fresh meat.

[MAC]

Now only 2 sellers left...looks like the market is guessing that CRP will gain its permit...

Yes, there’s only three weeks to go before the hearing recesses on the 19th with no show stoppers identified, all good, if there was even anything you could bet Gareth Hughes would be strutting about on the TV making slughills out of subterrainian mountains.

IMO it’s now all entirely about the DMC deciding scientifically which conditions to apply and which to discard from amongst those offered by CRP, the EPA staff, the Crown, and perhaps any raised during proceedings.

[sommelier]

Someone with some money to burn please buy a couple of thousand shares at 25c. It'll be fun.

[sommelier]

So, estimated profit over 15 years at $525m, or $35m average per year, based on $237m annual revenue. PE of 10 suit you guys? So $350m predicted mcap, about 10 times current. Just have to remember there will be significant dilution once Boskalis starts throwing money behind it.

[sommelier]

$306m in direct economic benefit (royalties + tax) is also a nice carrot. We can now characterise every question as "The anemone, or $306m?", "The possible-but-unlikely risk to hoki fisheries, or $306m?".

[MAC]

So, estimated profit over 15 years at $525m, or $35m average per year, based on $237m annual revenue. PE of 10 suit you guys? So $350m predicted mcap, about 10 times current. Just have to remember there will be significant dilution once Boskalis starts throwing money behind it.

It’s even better Sommelier, those are earnings estimates post Boskalis contact production costs. Boskalis fund the venture in return for an ongoing per tonne production fee, so no dilution from them.

https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/202577.pdf

[easy money]

Now 18 cents....this company is still going for a song..(if the permit is granted)...

[easy money]

STRONG opening today...interest is building..by the time the permit is actually granted the share price will be much higher

[Joshuatree]

Aha thats why you're easy money.;you're a soothsayer; the future is certain and the best way to a$million bucks is to start with $5 million:)

[MAC]

STRONG opening today...interest is building..by the time the permit is actually granted the share price will be much higher

Gareth Hughes had his say at the hearing on Thursday and had absolutely nothing new to add, just the same usual rhetoric gone before.

If there were any show stoppers or newly discovered issues, that was his opportunity to table any, and he had none whatsoever.

Given the market had discounted CRP to loose change, I suspect, DMC willing, that there won’t be much on the sell side in a few week’s time, a lot has fallen away today even.

[croesus]

Aha thats why you're easy money.;you're a soothsayer; the future is certain and the best way to a$million bucks is to start with $5 million:)

Thats a bit negative J.T...easy to hide behind a nom de plume, I guess

[croesus]

Poor Old Gareth, another 3 years in the Wilderness, does he not get the carbon footprint of shipping from Morocco.

Where would supplies be if Islamic State, takes over ?

[traderdude]

550k shares offer in this morning at $0.18. Will be interesting to see if the seller has any volume behind this. Good buying anyways methinks

[Balance]

550k shares offer in this morning at $0.18. Will be interesting to see if the seller has any volume behind this. Good buying anyways methinks

Move 'em up and sell 'em down.

[Intel]

Aplogies but this ia question for MAC. I've been reading teh CRP transcripts.. Are you Mac Beggs? A person called Mac Beggs presented at the CRP hearing anyway, thought it was coincidental.

[MAC]

Aplogies but this ia question for MAC. I've been reading teh CRP transcripts.. Are you Mac Beggs? A person called Mac Beggs presented at the CRP hearing anyway, thought it was coincidental.


Ha nope, although I do think it is entirely much more likely that you might be Gareth Hughes :)

[Intel]

Hahaha, The thought of earning only 150k a year as a Green MP is entirely unappealing. Having to talk to Russel Norman everyday would be akin to poking needles in ones eye.

Im most definitely pro oil/ gas/ mining and my views on CRP are investment related, not politically motivated and I have made some successful investments in those areas. CRP was incredibly appealing to me at face value, Edison reports etc paint a fantastic picture but when you research as dilligently as I did, actually get out and meet potential customers etc you get a feel for how unsuccessful this business will be.

I won't digest the merits of my views vs others as I dont own the business, dont need to promote it like others do and really dont care that much if it goes up or down. I read A LOT and have used CRp as an exercise in understanding the EPA process and it has been valuable from that respect.

Also - Just wanted to know if you were Mac Beggs, seemed to coincidental - What is your background if you dont mind me asking?

[barleeni]

Sharp drop in price in last hour or so, coupled with a lot of pressure from the sell side. Does somebody know something I/we don't? SP down to $0.135 reversing all of the last few days gains?

[MAC]

Sharp drop in price in last hour or so, coupled with a lot of pressure from the sell side. Does somebody know something I/we don't? SP down to $0.135 reversing all of the last few days gains?

My anticipation is that the soph's are selling to partially fund the final round of off market purchase at 12c + 1:1 options. It's the last chance for them but I suspect some might miss out though.

[Intel]

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed today, understandable when you've probaly lost 60% + in an investment.

I believe I reinforced I have no motivation at all, unlike yourself. I have used CRP as a way to learn more about mining investment, used the forum to express views and find out if my thoughts were misplaced for somereason and invoke discussion around investment. You on teh other hand downplay anyone that has something opposing to say about any stock you own/ views you have. Its disgusting and I imagine less versed people have probably followed you into CRP and lost considerbale amounts of money as well. You should be ashamed.

You need to pull your head in and stop thinking everyone is a knocker. I for one actually enjoy discussing issues, love hearing peoples views that are aposed to my own as you never know what you dont know. I like all, are here to make money, and my understanding of this forum is that its a place to invoke discussion about investments, not be abused for having differing views.

[MAC]

You fool nobody intel and have not done so for a year or so now, people see through disingenuous intent and motivations, and the fact that you feel a need to habitually return to a thread with the same rhetoric for which you have no interest in investing is compounding evidence of such. Even you must appreciate that most easily see that you retain philosophical opposition.

But, since you tried to put words in my mouth and for the record of others, I’m neither bearish nor bullish on CRP, I’m neutral. The analyst valuations $1.76 and $1.30 are neither low nor high by my determination. I am also centrist in regard to the marine consent, I don’t think it will be declined or granted, but granted with conditions.

[Intel]

You fool nobody intel and have not done so for a year or so now, people see through disingenuous intent and motivations, and the fact that you feel a need to habitually return to a thread with the same rhetoric for which you have no interest in investing is compounding evidence of such. Even you must appreciate that most easily see that you retain philosophical opposition.

But, since you tried to put words in my mouth and for the record of others, I’m neither bearish nor bullish on CRP, I’m neutral. The analyst valuations $1.76 and $1.30 are neither low nor high by my determination. I am also centrist in regard to the marine consent, I don’t think it will be declined or granted, but granted with conditions.

What on earth would my motivations be? You can't short the stock so finanical motivation is out of the question. Im bemused at that comment and your comments around lack of interest around investing are incorrect. That is the only reaosn I follow this stock. I just believe it is prudent to not invest.

How can someone express such angst at other opinions yet have a "neutral view". Thats pathetic. Also, how can ones "humble opinon" result in a valuation of $1.70 yet have a "neutral view".

Im going to pick you have an accounting background - can build a dcf but dont understand assumptions that enter it.

On that note, im signing off the CRP board, obviously discussion around the merits/ pitfalls of investments is not what I thought these forums are for and will no longer contribute, Im sure others will be happy with that as well, some may not be. I am sure it will not matter either way.

I wish all the holders of CRP a successful outcome at the EPA hearing.

My philosophy in regard to invetsments is about making money, so I guess you're correct, I have a philosophical opposition to CRP.

[blackcap]

What on earth would my motivations be? You can't short the stock so finanical motivation is out of the question. Im bemused at that comment and your comments around lack of interest around investing are incorrect. That is the only reaosn I follow this stock. I just believe it is prudent to not invest.

How can someone express such angst at other opinions yet have a "neutral view". Thats pathetic. Also, how can ones "humble opinon" result in a valuation of $1.70 yet have a "neutral view".

Im going to pick you have an accounting background - can build a dcf but dont understand assumptions that enter it.

On that note, im signing off the CRP board, obviously discussion around the merits/ pitfalls of investments is not what I thought these forums are for and will no longer contribute, Im sure others will be happy with that as well, some may not be. I am sure it will not matter either way.

I wish all the holders of CRP a successful outcome at the EPA hearing.

My philosophy in regard to invetsments is about making money, so I guess you're correct, I have a philosophical opposition to CRP.

Great post Intel, please do not leave. You make a good point about motivations. Because even if you were Gareth Hughes (not that I think you are), posting on this forum is not going to change the consent process one iota. There is nothing wrong with being negative on a stock if the situation warrants it. CRP is a classic case of wealth destruction at work and as such any post plugging CRP must come with a caveat. I am inadvertently a CRP holder through my exposure to AOR. However I have written CRP off at zero and was not happy that AOR decided to pour more funds into CRP. Either way I do hope CRP do well but with the current market conditions and all other hurdles yet to be completed do not see the SP appreciating in a hurry. These views are entirely my own opinion and one must do their own research before investing.

[Balance]

You fool nobody intel and have not done so for a year or so now, people see through disingenuous intent and motivations, and the fact that you feel a need to habitually return to a thread with the same rhetoric for which you have no interest in investing is compounding evidence of such. Even you must appreciate that most easily see that you retain philosophical opposition.

But, since you tried to put words in my mouth and for the record of others, I’m neither bearish nor bullish on CRP, I’m neutral. The analyst valuations $1.76 and $1.30 are neither low nor high by my determination. I am also centrist in regard to the marine consent, I don’t think it will be declined or granted, but granted with conditions.

One of the most telling posts I have seen about the delusional nature of some posters!

Please pass onto Chris Castle our best regards for yet another 'heads he wins, tails you lose' venture.

[Joshuatree]

Thanks Intel for your input; I've been a lone voice on here at times. Mac has stated that CRP is only a small investment for him which i appreciate as i believe its high risk proposition i.e. don't put the house on it.
But sometimes i think he's worked for Textor/Crosbie in the way he normalises things. In the first paragraph in his above post , using words like"you fool NOBODY" " PEOPLE see through your..."..." " Even you must appreciate that MOST...."etc.
Speak for yourself MAC and not on behalf of others its disingenuous and manipulative. Appreciate most of MAC's 2nd paragraph , straight forward opinion.

[Balance]

What on earth would my motivations be? You can't short the stock so finanical motivation is out of the question. Im bemused at that comment and your comments around lack of interest around investing are incorrect. That is the only reaosn I follow this stock. I just believe it is prudent to not invest.

How can someone express such angst at other opinions yet have a "neutral view". Thats pathetic. Also, how can ones "humble opinon" result in a valuation of $1.70 yet have a "neutral view".

Im going to pick you have an accounting background - can build a dcf but dont understand assumptions that enter it.

On that note, im signing off the CRP board, obviously discussion around the merits/ pitfalls of investments is not what I thought these forums are for and will no longer contribute, Im sure others will be happy with that as well, some may not be. I am sure it will not matter either way.

I wish all the holders of CRP a successful outcome at the EPA hearing.

My philosophy in regard to invetsments is about making money, so I guess you're correct, I have a philosophical opposition to CRP.

Intel, I support Blackcap's post about you staying on.

One simple question about Chris Castle and so far, not one of CRP's supporters has answered the question - what is his track record for creating wealth for minority shareholders?

Keeping an open mind is impossible when they will say anything except answer that question.

[easy money]

So no one loves CRP....fair enough..from a contrary point of view now would be a good time to be buying...Chris Castle has put forward a perfectly viable business case..which when the permit is granted..(with conditions no doubt)..should turn this company into a profitable venture...

[BlackPeter]

So no one loves CRP....fair enough..from a contrary point of view now would be a good time to be buying...Chris Castle has put forward a perfectly viable business case..which when the permit is granted..(with conditions no doubt)..should turn this company into a profitable venture...

Might be not that easy money. Had some months a go a wee look into the phosphate market and felt afterwards that CRP's margin (assuming they manage to achieve the required regulatory, commercial and technical milestones first) might not be that flash. On the other hand - nobody I know can foresee the future, but if you plan to invest in CRP I'd recommend to have first a good look into the future of the rock phosphate market.

Discl: chickened out some weeks ago (based on above), but wish the company all the best. Definitely hope for them gaining resource consent, everything else would be a very unfortunate signal to any potential investor into NZ Ltd.

[blackcap]

Discl: chickened out some weeks ago (based on above), but wish the company all the best. Definitely hope for them gaining resource consent, everything else would be a very unfortunate signal to any potential investor into NZ Ltd.

I believe they have resource consent.... its marine consent they still need to achieve. Splitting hairs maybe but does show what they have to go through. Any other poster please correct me if I am wrong with the above statement about consents.

[Balance]

So no one loves CRP....fair enough..from a contrary point of view now would be a good time to be buying...Chris Castle has put forward a perfectly viable business case..which when the permit is granted..(with conditions no doubt)..should turn this company into a profitable venture...

What is CRP's breakeven phosphate rock price? It has fallen like most commodities and is now trading at 25% of what it was in 2008!

[croesus]

What is CRP's breakeven phosphate rock price? It has fallen like most commodities and is now trading at 25% of what it was in 2008!

so is that correct.. ?

Phosphate out of Morrocco, landed in NZ, and available to be loaded into a Top Dressing plane.. or Fert truck is 25% of the price 6 years ago ?

Can you show me some stats, or are you grabbing numbers out of the air ?

[Balance]

so is that correct.. ?

Phosphate out of Morrocco, landed in NZ, and available to be loaded into a Top Dressing plane.. or Fert truck is 25% of the price 6 years ago ?

Can you show me some stats, or are you grabbing numbers out of the air ?

Was US$430 per metric tonne in Sept 2008 - now it is US$115. Was US$101 beginning of year.

Do a google search - you will find it's all there.

[croesus]

That's interesting so its up approx 15% ... in 10 months.

Imagine what the price will be if ISIL move on to Morrocco.. they have Algeria and Western Sahara as neighbours.

hmmph

[MAC]

The phosphate market was looking pretty good in 2008 too Croesus due to unrest in North Africa, wouldn't you say.

The independent phosphate market reports I have don’t indicate another peak like that is likely, but as you wisely say it just takes the islamic state to move into the area, and it becomes an above and beyond bonus for CRP.

Both the two analyst reports I have both indicate that Chatham Rock is very profitable indeed with a long run average market price at $125/t, their valuations are $1.79 and $1.30 respectively.

6428

If anyone is actually looking for a balanced view the latest Edison report for Chatham Rock may be found here;

http://www.edisoninvestmentresearch.com/research/report/chatham-rock-phosphate5

[BlackPeter]

I believe they have resource consent.... its marine consent they still need to achieve. Splitting hairs maybe but does show what they have to go through. Any other poster please correct me if I am wrong with the above statement about consents.

OK - if you want to play it this way, here are some different permit types:

http://www.mineralswestcoast.co.nz/permitting_legislation.aspx

They currently have a mining permit, which is however worthless without the as well required environmental marine consent, check:
http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/working_eez/Pages/Types_consent_applications.aspx

The marine consent is currently pending (i.e. in front of the deciding committee).

[BlackPeter]

What is CRP's breakeven phosphate rock price? It has fallen like most commodities and is now trading at 25% of what it was in 2008!

From memory - their estimated mining cost are something like NZD 100 per ton. Below the current price (USD 115), but not a lot of buffer.

[MAC]

From memory - their estimated mining cost are something like NZD 100 per ton. Below the current price (USD 115), but not a lot of buffer.

I would recommend a read of the 2013 capital raising document or the Edison report BlackPeter.

The anticipated Boskalis operating fee is anticipated to be US$85/t. One must bear in mind that is a fee for both phosphate recovery and for landing the phosphate at port in NZ. The importation costs alone for Moroccan phosphate is around US$70/t, that’s after one pays US$125/t FOB.

It's the long run phosphate price that is important though, not spot price this year or last.

Adjustments also need to be made, downward for P2O5 composition and upward for several other specific physical properties of the Chatham rise phosphate. Particularly the DAP properties which, as I understand, can demand a retail premium of up to $NZ100 more than other phosphates.

Also, the CRP model is more complex than just assessing it against Moroccan prices. CRP intend to sell phosphate in eight countries each with different product mixes, value propositions and gross margins.

https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/202577.pdf

trust this assists,

kind regards, Mac

[MAC]

I believe they have resource consent.... its marine consent they still need to achieve. Splitting hairs maybe but does show what they have to go through. Any other poster please correct me if I am wrong with the above statement about consents.

CRP have a mining permit Blackcap to recover phosphate as per the Boskalis proposal, as below.

http://static.squarespace.com/static/51d24098e4b0d519d0c065f5/t/521e73a4e4b0bef9fdb6c076/1377727396503/Boskalis_AUSIMM2013.pdf

It's required by NZP&M to ensure the miner is adopting the best practicable environmental and efficient processes for recovering the phosphate and for establishing what royalties the Crown should receive. All that is done and dusted.

What CRP require presently is a marine consent to be granted under the EEZ Act.

“The purpose of the EEZ Act is to promote the sustainable management of the natural resources of an area”

The key words are ‘promote’ and ‘sustainable’, it’s effectively the balance between the two that the DMC must decide on, or most probably IMO, to determine balancing environment controls so to apply as balancing conditions.

[NT001]

Here's a new development. I'm not exactly sure of its implications but presumably it will affect the SP

https://www.nzx.com/companies/CRP/announcements/257007

[MAC]

Here's a new development. I'm not exactly sure of its implications but presumably it will affect the SP

https://www.nzx.com/companies/CRP/announcements/257007

Interesting NT, it’s good for shareholders, more time to plan and excise options at ones discretion

CRPOB options if all exercised, would raise $30M in capital for CRP, I’ve assumed all that cash is for the proposed phosphate trading business as CRP don’t need any of that cash for mining the Chatham rise.

It's probable, as they don’t need that cash immediately, they have offered the extension as a sweetener to the sophs for the present (final) capital raising, seems most likely to me.

[Balance]

Here's a new development. I'm not exactly sure of its implications but presumably it will affect the SP

https://www.nzx.com/companies/CRP/announcements/257007

Good for option holders but negative for ordinary shareholders.

Stock options 101.

[blackcap]

Interesting NT, it’s good for shareholders, more time to plan and excise options at ones discretion

.

I do not think that is correct Mac. In finance we were taught that extending options is bad for shareholders, but its good for option holders as their time to maturity increases giving more time value embedded in the option.

[elZorro]

I'm surprised there is no mention of Nautilus Minerals on this thread. They are heading in the same sort of direction as CRP, with a lot more cash and resources. Since they are looking for gold deposits just offshore in PNG, it's no great surprise that the Chairman of the board is Geoff Loudon (L&M Mining, GEL etc). They are already well through making some world-leading equipment for seafloor harvesting of minerals, and probably know more about the rigorous environmental processes. Here's a link to their 2013 annual report.

http://www.nautilusminerals.com/i/pdf/2013-AR.pdf

[MAC]

I do not think that is correct Mac. In finance we were taught that extending options is bad for shareholders, but its good for option holders as their time to maturity increases giving more time value embedded in the option.

Very probably Blackcap on that subtle distinction, although nearly all CRP shareholders are also options holders.

I've roughly a 2:1 share/options split without any attempt at trying, just from having taken up the rights issues and an oversubscription as they've come along.

It's been a very good tool for managing risk, I'm well under 50% invested in CRP than as intended after the marine consent at CRPOB expiry.

The sophs buying at present, if new shareholders, will have a 1:1 share/options spit.

So, although I do agree with you, for nearly all invested in CRP it is a good thing.

For me it means I don't have raise a lot of cash all at once, I can now just take up options when or if I've cash on hand.

Could make for a more buoyant CRPOB market too after the marine consent.

[croesus]

Also Blackcap with all due respect to your finance teachers, even holders of CRP shares who have no options will benefit, if the raising of the $30 m goes ahead, as it guarantees the finances needed, rather a diluted holder of a viable company, then a non diluted holder of a company with no value.
No theoretical finance, but real world.

Still the above is all moot, until we get Marine Consent

[Balance]

Also Blackcap with all due respect to your finance teachers, even holders of CRP shares who have no options will benefit, if the raising of the $30 m goes ahead, as it guarantees the finances needed, rather a diluted holder of a viable company, then a non diluted holder of a company with no value.
No theoretical finance, but real world.



Biggest real world BS witnessed in a long time!

[blackcap]

Biggest BS witnessed in a long time!

cheers balance, I purposely did not reply because that is exactly what it is. (BS that is) Not worthy of a reply really.

[Balance]

cheers balance, I purposely did not reply because that is exactly what it is. (BS that is) Not worthy of a reply really.

Indeed, blackcap - but I find it so amazing how anyone investing in shares and companies can sprout that kind of class A BS - hence, my posting to record it for posterity.

[MAC]

Here you go Croesus, some Islamic state activity just starting in Morocco now

http://magharebia.com/en_GB/articles/awi/reportage/2014/10/10/reportage-01

[croesus]

cheers balance, I purposely did not reply because that is exactly what it is. (BS that is) Not worthy of a reply really.

So Balance and Blackcap... I doubt if either of you live in the real world of running a business and investing..

obviously any one with sense would rather have shares diluted if that means the company can grow and prosper, rather then be a holder of shares that are of no value.
Sounds like your " cutting of your nose to... "

No being adversarial or wishing to be Modded... but do you guys run your own businesses, have real jobs... etc ?

[croesus]

Here you go Croesus, some Islamic state activity just starting in Morocco now

http://magharebia.com/en_GB/articles/awi/reportage/2014/10/10/reportage-01

Good spotting MAC,.. hopefully for Morrocco's sake ISIL fails, but it is obvious the whole of North Africa will tip over, Kenya is not looking flash, either

[MAC]

Couldn't agree more, any folk that go around chopping heads off willie nillie deserve to be held to account, these islamic state flare up’s things unfortunately for the poor buggers on the ground seem to take years to dissipate too once they start, doesn’t seem to be total blood shed just yet, but wouldn’t be planning a holiday in Marrakesh any time soom.

http://magharebia.com/en_GB/articles.../20/feature-02 (http://magharebia.com/en_GB/articles/awi/features/2014/10/20/feature-02)

[MAC]

It’s always good to see Directors buying and topping up.

Especially much so just a few weeks out from the marine consent decision !

https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/203032.pdf

[Balance]

It’s always good to see Directors buying and topping up.

Especially much so just a few weeks out from the marine consent decision !

https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/203032.pdf

Rights issue shortfall.

Yawn.

[croesus]

Rights issue shortfall.

Yawn.

Balance why are you so negative ?
I notice you didn't answer my earlier question... several posts back.

The problem with Sharetrader and many other of similar ilk, is the ability for negative, and or downrampers to hide behind a nom de plume...

emboldened by their invisibility they then feel brave and smart by posting rubbish... ie "yawn"

at the risk of being modded, compared to many posters on Sharetrader... I don't think you add any value.




































to hide behind a ( faulty) nom de plume and knock ...

[MAC]

Well yes, when well qualified technical directors who are intimate on a daily basis with the marine consent scientific research and status of the hearing proceedings is buying shares, many aside from the most exceptionally cynical would say that is a really quite a positive endorsement.

https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/203032.pdf

Robert’s profile,

"Robert Goodden is a member of the Company’s technical advisory team. Robert chairs Subsea Minerals Ltd developing business opportunities in marine mining and before that, as Chief Executive on a surf zone marine mining project off the coast of Namibia. He was previously on the advisory board for Nautilus Minerals advising on core drilling and sample recovery"

"Robert founded Seacore Limited an offshore drilling and construction contractor in 1976 and ran the company for 30 years until it was sold to the Fugro Group in 2006. He has also served as a commissioned officer in the Royal Engineers"

[Joshuatree]

Well he had to didn't he;); about time . Re $12,000; his salaries worth would make statement to the converted.

[croesus]

Well he had to didn't he;); about time . Re $12,000; his salaries worth would make statement to the converted.

" aside from the most exceptionally cynical ".... summed up in one....

easy to snipe behind a non de plume..... wouldnt dare say it to his face I bet

Why waste your time J.T.... how about something constructive for a change..... Sharetrader would be the better for it.

[croesus]

Couldn't agree more, any folk that go around chopping heads off willie nillie deserve to be held to account, these islamic state flare up’s things unfortunately for the poor buggers on the ground seem to take years to dissipate too once they start, doesn’t seem to be total blood shed just yet, but wouldn’t be planning a holiday in Marrakesh any time soom.

http://magharebia.com/en_GB/articles.../20/feature-02 (http://magharebia.com/en_GB/articles/awi/features/2014/10/20/feature-02)

I wonder if this has been noted.... in the consent decision process...
Cant imagine it would hurt our cause for Chris to table this ..ie ISIL s plans for Morroco.

Has any one done put any thought into what Phosphate cost would be if Morroco stopped supplying the West ?

What effect would that have on our Farming Industry ?

Can we source it at similar cost from other suppliers. ?

Would the greens we prefer we manufacturer a similar product chemically .... ?

Actually what was the Greens main objection.... a few sea anemones, some seagulls flying into the dredge and killing themselves, .. they don't seem concerned at the thousands of sq kilometers raked up by weighted bottom trawls from the fishing industry.

Still this is the Party espousing homeopathic cures for Ebola !!

[Balance]

Well he had to didn't he;); about time . Re $12,000; his salaries worth would make statement to the converted.

Precisely, JT. This guy puts up his hand for $12k worth of rights issue shortfall and that is supposed to be a vote of confidence?

I invested in THL on the back of directors buying - at market prices, and well in excess of their directors' fees. That's class and that's confidence.

And the profitability and sp performance of THL reflects that confidence.

[Joshuatree]

Anyone ever look at Chris Castle's track record of delivering enhanced shareholders' wealth to investors/shareholders?

The silence is deafening and speaks volumes.

[MAC]

" aside from the most exceptionally cynical ".... summed up in one....

easy to snipe behind a non de plume..... wouldnt dare say it to his face I bet

Why waste your time J.T.... how about something constructive for a change..... Sharetrader would be the better for it.

I think you will find that the said individual lost money in a WID investment and has made it their life mission to slander its former managers and any companies they are presently associated with.

Personally I just think that just demonstrates the behaviour of a bitter and twisted individual, all companies come with risk and investors accept that risk when they invest, crying about ones failed investments for years on end and blaming others, whether management was in part accountable or not, is just poor form.

It would be a pleasure to clarify the forum rules as they apply to persistent slander and anonymity, the internet is a public forum and I’m not sure entirely how much anonymity there really is should an external defamation case request information.

[Balance]

I think you will find that the said individual lost money in a WID investment and has made it their life mission to slander its former managers and any companies they are presently associated with.

Personally I just think that just demonstrates the behaviour of a bitter and twisted individual, all companies come with risk and investors accept that risk when they invest, crying about ones failed investments for years on end and blaming others, whether management was in part accountable or not, is just poor form.

It would be a pleasure to clarify the forum rules as they apply to persistent slander and anonymity, the internet is a public forum and I’m not sure entirely how much anonymity there really is should an external defamation case request information.

You could not be more wrong.

Answer the question - Anyone ever look at Chris Castle's track record of delivering enhanced shareholders' wealth to investors/shareholders?

I for one am keeping an open mind but your deafening silence leads to an obvious conclusion.

[croesus]

I think you will find that the said individual lost money in a WID investment and has made it their life mission to slander its former managers and any companies they are presently associated with.

Personally I just think that just demonstrates the behaviour of a bitter and twisted individual, all companies come with risk and investors accept that risk when they invest, crying about ones failed investments for years on end and blaming others, whether management was in part accountable or not, is just poor form.

It would be a pleasure to clarify the forum rules as they apply to persistent slander and anonymity, the internet is a public forum and I’m not sure entirely how much anonymity there really is should an external defamation case request information.

I guess we all put pen to paper, ( so to speak ) and regret ... Ive often done that, as I am sure by trolling thru sharetrader would find.

Its just this constant cowardly knocking that annoys me... agree Chris has'nt found a SYR (au ) yet.. but not for want of trying... and the likes of Balance and Joshua Tree demean themselves by constantly banging on about it.

as you say " all companys come with risk " its not compulsory to invest.

to steal a line from Bob Jones.... " lightweights"

[Balance]

I would rather meet and talk to people who have tried and failed than those who have never tried at all. Usually extremely interesting characters.

I would prefer myself to meet people who have failed but learnt and make progress after their failures.

[MAC]

You could not be more wrong.

Answer the question - Anyone ever look at Chris Castle's track record of delivering enhanced shareholders' wealth to investors/shareholders?

I for one am keeping an open mind but your deafening silence leads to an obvious conclusion.

I could not be more right, and I make no apology for taking the moral high ground.

CEO's, directors and managers, from whatever company they represent, do not deserve to be slandered just because some random guy called 'balance' on the internet thinks he can throw rocks from behind a wall of anonymity and leave perpetual unsubstantiated comments on an open world forum.

If you think managers are in error at any time than the debate should be about specific actions and outcomes.

Companies fail for a lot of very complex reasons, I'm not in anyway justifying those reasons, and it's not my job here to be silent or otherwise, but your bitter and twisted angst against individuals in no way justifies slander and/or defamation.

[MAC]

I would rather meet and talk to people who have tried and failed than those who have never tried at all. Usually extremely interesting characters.

Development is an interesting profession also, even with large corporates, only 1 in 10 ventures make it to FID and go on to become profitable. Even with a smaller company like AOR, not all of the investments will be successful, but it just takes one or two and the company is so. It’s a high risk high reward sector.

People who see early opportunities, particularly in the resource sector, very often do fail a few times before they succeed, such is the way some of the best entrepreneurs have been made.

[Balance]

I could not be more right, and I make no apology for taking the moral high ground.

CEO's, directors and managers, from whatever company they represent, do not deserve to be slandered just because some random guy called 'balance' on the internet thinks he can throw rocks from behind a wall of anonymity and leave perpetual unsubstantiated comments on an open world forum.

If you think managers are in error at any time than the debate should be about specific actions and outcomes.

Companies fail for a lot of very complex reasons, I'm not in anyway justifying those reasons, and it's not my job here to be silent or otherwise, but your bitter and twisted angst against individuals in no way justifies slander and/or defamation.

So point to one posting which is slanderous or defamatory.

Questioning a director's or a company's track record and history is part and partial of due diligence in investing. Anyone who runs a public company must be able to stand up to scrutiny.

Fact is that you cannot handle tough questions so you try and hide behind accusations of slander and defamation.

So answer the question - 'what is Chris Castle's track record of generating wealth for investors?'

[MAC]

It’s not anyone’s job on this forum to answer your questions, you can ask them directly to their face, and I’m sure if you or I made an effort we would find a lot of success amongst all that history and probably some entrepreneurial failures also.

“Chris Castle is a chartered accountant with more than 37 years’ experience in investment and corporate finance. Chris was a founding director of Spectrum Resources and Premier Mining Securities and has held directorships in ten NZX listed companies. His mining and mineral exploration background includes projects with Amoil NZ, Kanieri Gold Dredging and Australian Anglo-American. Chris’ investment sector experience includes Brierley Investments and the Regina Confections/Charter Corporation group. He established the Aorere business in 1989 as a mining and mineral sector focused investor and share trader. He is also a non-executive director of TSX-V listed Asian Mineral Resources and chairman of ASX listed King Solomon Mines”

Yes, repetitive negative comments in the public domain about any individual that diminishes reputation is defamatory.

[BlackPeter]

So point to one posting which is slanderous or defamatory.

Questioning a director's or a company's track record and history is part and partial of due diligence in investing. Anyone who runs a public company must be able to stand up to scrutiny.

Fact is that you cannot handle tough questions so you try and hide behind accusations of slander and defamation.

So answer the question - 'what is Chris Castle's track record of generating wealth for investors?'

I don't always find myself on the same side as balance (and some could argue that this is a gross understatement), but I think in this case he deserves support.

Haven't seen slander and defamation, but critical questions and some (I think legitimate) irony.

Not sure MAC and croesus, what your problems are? Are you trying to talk up CRP to be able to sell? Otherwise ... what's the problem with some critical questions or ironic comments? If your beloved stock is as good as you think it is, than it gives you at worst another exciting opportunity to buy in more shares at undervalued prices :p

BTW - just assuming that neither "Mac" nor "croesus" are your surnames as stated in your passport. So what exactly is wrong with balance using a nom de plume as well? Give me a better word, but somehow the attribute "hypocritic" springs to mind when trying to describe the behaviour of the both of you.

Discl: Sold out CRP some weeks ago, but still consider it as viable (but too high risk for my appetite) proposition. And yes, wouldn't you have guessed - "BlackPeter" is just a "nom de plume" as well. Do I now need to feel bad about using it:blush:?

[Balance]

Yes, repetitive negative comments in the public domain about any individual that diminishes reputation is defamatory.

Congratulations - you have just invented a new lower threshold for defamation. Now get a lawyer and go make your fortunes.

:D

[MAC]

Congratulations - you have just invented a new lower threshold for defamation. Now get a lawyer and go make your fortunes.

:D

Well ok Balance, but I do think for those like yourself that may have concerns, genuine or otherwise, you should really take them to the AGM.

I'm not defending anyone, that's not my job either, but a right of reply is fair and company management does not have that opportunity on a blog site, that is really my point.

I've not met Chris Castle, he was not at the only AGM I've been to, there's a lot of very smart hard working people at that company though, and if they succeed it will be due to that, if they don't it will not be for lack of effort and experience.

[Joshuatree]

9/8/13
One of the most important aspects of any investment is having confidence in management. Often its very hard to research this. I was a shareholder in widespread some years ago . i dont have a grudge but my personal overwhelming exp is i dont have confidence in management; i don't think shareholders are looked after.I think there is alot of enthusiasm and spin and justification to benefit who? didnt feel like us. Just my opinion. No more from me atp. This is a great forum to share our opinions on making money and not losing it ,but as ever DYOR and good luck .[/QUOTE]

I made an investment mistake back then; my stuff up.; I've moved on. I believed in management ; but not since. Im in good company ;Gaynor for one and many others on here .Also aware of how much risk there is in projects like this. Suggest people read thru the threads as its all been pointed out. Some good research by Mac; also some spruiking by believers, lots of subtle it will happen type language. It may but consent maybe with a lot of conditions as snap points out. Then even if its "viable",Project risk and fluctuating phosphate price risk, weather risk etc a lot of dots to continuously hold together. If you're still a believer; make it small allocation and be prepared to put more in.

[croesus]

9/8/13
One of the most important aspects of any investment is having confidence in management. Often its very hard to research this. I was a shareholder in widespread some years ago . i dont have a grudge but my personal overwhelming exp is i dont have confidence in management; i don't think shareholders are looked after.I think there is alot of enthusiasm and spin and justification to benefit who? didnt feel like us. Just my opinion. No more from me atp. This is a great forum to share our opinions on making money and not losing it ,but as ever DYOR and good luck .

I made an investment mistake back then; my stuff up.; I've moved on. I believed in management ; but not since. Im in good company ;Gaynor for one and many others on here .Also aware of how much risk there is in projects like this. Suggest people read thru the threads as its all been pointed out. Some good research by Mac; also some spruiking by believers, lots of subtle it will happen type language. It may but consent maybe with a lot of conditions as snap points out. Then even if its "viable",Project risk and fluctuating phosphate price risk, weather risk etc a lot of dots to continuously hold together. If you're still a believer; make it small allocation and be prepared to put more in.[/QUOTE]

With all due respect... you hav'nt moved on....have a look at some of your recent sniping posts...

but to be fair ... do you mean you have moved on from today.

Well great...

Lets have constructive criticism, and less of the back biting innuendo.

( in my opinion .. you are lucky not to have been modded )

Great, well done !

[MAC]

It will be really satisfying actually as a long term shareholder, DMC willing, to see Chatham Rock fully capitalised and consented in just a few weeks time, it has been a long road, or maybe a voyage, to this point.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/BU1411/S00003/chatham-rock-phosphate-allotment-of-shares-and-options.htm

[BFG]

MAC, I note you have maintained the same share price targets even through several dilutions (some of inconsequential size, others quite large)...

[blackcap]

MAC, I note you have maintained the same share price targets even through several dilutions (some of inconsequential size, others quite large)...

Maybe other parameters like the phosphate price eg, have improved enough to compensate :P ;)

[MAC]

MAC, I note you have maintained the same share price targets even through several dilutions (some of inconsequential size, others quite large)...

Hi BFG,

I have, but for good reason, just like Edison I’ve valued assuming the forward dilution.

From the Edison report, May 2014;

“We have revised our success-case NPV valuation to take into account dilution from the 1 for 10 rights issue, secondary AIM listing and, as before, the full impact of the exercise of the Subsea unlisted options (where the last tranche will be exercised in August 2015). On our base case assumptions, our unrisked valuation is now NZ$1.76/share (previously NZ$1.89/share)”

The Edison valuation at $1.76, allows for full dilution as at the completion of capital raising but was prepared on the basis of an AIM listing which never occurred, CRP opted for the recent local rights issue instead at a slightly higher dilution, but with significantly lower administrative and listing costs.

So, the Edison valuation as it stands still remains a good guide for investors right now, but will require a slight adjustment for the aforementioned reason, it might come down to $1.65 or something like that.

Note also that Subsea’s 36M options at 28.8c may not necessarily be fully taken up, $11M is a lot of cash to come up with for a consortium of investors who only invested around $4M to start with, just a feeling I have, but let’s see.

The only dilution not allowed for by Edison is the CRPOB dilution (now in 2016) which will be by my estimation around 18%, that’s provided all CRPOB 68.8c options are exercised, but that's a fair way off now.

Trust this assists,

kind regards, Mac

[easy money]

Hi BFG,

I have, but for good reason, just like Edison I’ve valued assuming the forward dilution.

From the Edison report, May 2014;

“We have revised our success-case NPV valuation to take into account dilution from the 1 for 10 rights issue, secondary AIM listing and, as before, the full impact of the exercise of the Subsea unlisted options (where the last tranche will be exercised in August 2015). On our base case assumptions, our unrisked valuation is now NZ$1.76/share (previously NZ$1.89/share)”

The Edison valuation at $1.76, allows for full dilution as at the completion of capital raising but was prepared on the basis of an AIM listing which never occurred, CRP opted for the recent local rights issue instead at a slightly higher dilution, but with significantly lower administrative and listing costs.

So, the Edison valuation as it stands still remains a good guide for investors right now, but will require a slight adjustment for the aforementioned reason, it might come down to $1.65 or something like that.

Note also that Subsea’s 36M options at 28.8c may not necessarily be fully taken up, $11M is a lot of cash to come up with for a consortium of investors who only invested around $4M to start with, just a feeling I have, but let’s see.

The only dilution not allowed for by Edison is the CRPOB dilution (now in 2016) which will be by my estimation around 18%, that’s provided all CRPOB 68.8c options are exercised, but that's a fair way off now.

Trust this assists,

kind regards, Mac

AND now there is just a small matter of waiting for the permit to come through....and where away..