Home » Posts tagged 'fluorspar' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: fluorspar
Tertiary Minerals #TYM – Director Dealing, Issue of Equity & Total Voting Rights
Tertiary Minerals plc, the AIM traded company building a strategic position in the fluorspar sector announces that pursuant to terms agreed on 30 April 2014 and further to the RNS dated 20 August 2014, a non-executive director of the Company will be receiving a portion of his annual fees in ordinary shares of 0.01 penny each in the Company, on a six-monthly ongoing basis calculated with reference to the closing mid-market price on the trading day prior to the issue of the Ordinary Shares.
On 17 August 2018, the Company resolved to issue a total of 217,597 Ordinary Shares to Donald McAlister for the six month period ended 30 June 2018.
These Ordinary Shares were issued at a price of 0.625 pence per share, being the closing mid-market price on 16 August 2018.
The following table shows the number of Ordinary Shares issued to Donald McAlister together with his total holdings following the issue of the Ordinary Shares:
|
Director |
Number of Ordinary Shares issued |
Price of Ordinary Shares issued |
Interest in total number of Ordinary Shares following Admission |
% of Company’s issued share capital following Admission |
|
Donald McAlister |
217,597 |
0.625 pence |
876,765 |
0.24% |
Application has been made to the London Stock Exchange for 217,597 Ordinary Shares to be admitted to trading on AIM (“Admission”), and it is expected that Admission will occur on or around 24 August 2018.
Total Voting Rights
In accordance with Financial Conduct Authority’s Disclosure and Transparency Rules (“DTRs”), following the issue and Admission, the total issued share capital of the Company with voting rights will be 359,323,754 ordinary shares.
The above figure of 359,323,754 ordinary shares may be used by shareholders in the Company as the denominator for the calculations by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change in their interest in, the share capital of the Company under the DTRs.
Market Abuse Regulation
The notifications below, made in accordance with the requirements of the EU Market Abuse Regulation, provides further detail on the issue of ordinary shares to a director.
NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF TRANSACTIONS BY PERSONS DISCHARGING MANAGERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES AND PERSONS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.
1. |
Details of the person discharging managerial responsibilities/person closely associated |
|||||
|
a) |
Name: |
Donald McAlister |
||||
2. |
Reason for the notification |
|||||
|
a) |
Position/status: |
Non-Executive Director |
||||
|
b) |
Initial notification/Amendment: |
Initial notification |
||||
3. |
Details of the issuer, emission allowance market participant, auction platform, auctioneer or auction monitor |
|||||
|
a) |
Name: |
Tertiary Minerals plc |
||||
|
b) |
LEI: |
213800OT9C6DQN9VO543 |
||||
4. |
Details of the transaction(s): section to be repeated for (i) each type of instrument; (ii) each type of transaction; (iii) each date; and (iv) each place where transactions have been conducted |
|||||
|
a) |
Description of the financial instrument, type of instrument: Identification code: |
Ordinary shares of 0.01p each |
||||
|
b) |
Nature of the transaction: |
Issue of new ordinary shares in lieu of fees |
||||
|
c) |
Price(s) and volume(s): |
|
||||
|
d) |
Aggregated information: Aggregated volume: Price: |
Single transaction as in 4 c) above
|
||||
|
e) |
Date of the transaction: |
17 August 2018 14:30 UTC |
||||
|
f) |
Place of the transaction: |
Outside a trading venue |
||||
|
Enquiries
Tertiary Minerals plc Patrick Cheetham, Executive Chairman Richard Clemmey, Managing Director
|
+44 (0)1625 838 679 |
|
SP Angel Corporate Finance LLP Nominated Adviser & Broker Ewan Leggat /Lindsay Mair
|
+44 (0) 20 3470 0470 |
Notes to Editors
Tertiary Minerals plc (ticker symbol ‘TYM’) is an AIM-traded mineral exploration and development company building a significant strategic position in the fluorspar sector. Fluorspar is an essential raw material in the chemical, steel and aluminium industries. Tertiary controls two significant Scandinavian projects (Storuman in Sweden and Lassedalen in Norway) and a large deposit of strategic significance in Nevada USA (MB Project).
Industrial Minerals: European acidspar market tightness pushes buyers to China; prices firm there – Tertiary Minerals #TYM
Article and tables by Michael Greenfield, Industrial Minerals
Acidspar consumers in Europe have struggled to secure quality material consistently and in timely fashion because Chinese consumers are paying more than their European counterparts.
Acidspar availability in Europe is tight because producers are looking to sell to consumers in China where they can achieve higher prices.
The tightness in the European market is forcing consumers to enter the Chinese market to source material, putting upward pressure on acid grade fluorspar prices in China.
“No large volumes are being seen on the market [in Europe] – it can be done but with difficulty. There is no stock available. There is a premium on consistency and timely deliveries,” one trader said. “Flows of material are irregular and it has become a hand-to-mouth market.”
Industrial Minerals assessed the price of acidspar, 97% CaF2, wet filtercake, fob China at $450-530 per tonne on June 21, unchanged for a third consecutive week. At the start of 2018, the price was $400-420 per tonne.
Industrial Minerals does not price acidspar sold into China on a cif basis but understands the price to be $450-500 per tonne, according to a source selling material to Chinese consumers.
European prices have yet to react to the tightness and the choppier trading conditions, however. Industrial Minerals assessed the price in Europe for acidspar, 97% CaF2, wet filtercake, cif Rotterdam at $370-390 per tonne on February 15, where it has since held firm.
“All the material available on the spot market has gone to China,” a second trader said.
He claimed to have received inquiries from a major European acidspar user that had not previously approached him, highlighting the fact that even major buyers are scrambling to secure material.
“Asia is paying better [than Europe] and any producer with material is supplying them,” a producer confirmed.
Link here to read article on IndMin website
US Department of the Interior Releases 2018’s Final List of 35 Minerals Deemed Critical to U.S. National Security and the Economy – USGS
Article from The United States Geological SurveyThe Department of the Interior today published a list of 35 mineral commodities considered critical to the economic and national security of the United States. This list will be the initial focus of a multi-agency strategy due in August this year to implement President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order to break America’s dependence on foreign minerals
At the direction of Secretary Zinke, on February 16, 2018, Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey published a draft list of 35 critical minerals under Executive Order 13817. A report summarizing the methodology for compiling the list and background information can be found here.
Today, after consideration of the 453 public comments received, the Department of the Interior decided that the methodology used to draft the list remains valid and finalized the original list of 35 critical minerals in the Federal Register.
“The expertise of the USGS is absolutely vital to reducing America’s vulnerability to disruptions in our supply of critical minerals,” said Dr. Tim Petty, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science.
The list includes aluminum—used in almost all sectors of the economy; the platinum group metals—used for catalytic agents; rare-earth elements—used in batteries and electronics; tin—used as protective coatings and alloys for steel; and titanium—overwhelmingly used as a white pigment or as a metal alloy. A full list of the 35 mineral commodities follows.
This list of critical minerals, while “final,” is not intended as a permanent designation of criticality, but will be a dynamic list updated periodically to represent current data on supply, demand, and concentration of production, as well as current policy priorities.
Under the Executive Order, the Commerce Department is responsible for organizing the interagency responses into a final report which is due Aug. 16, 2018, to the President. The report will include:
- a strategy to reduce the nation’s reliance on critical minerals
- the status of recycling technologies
- alternatives to critical minerals
- options for accessing critical minerals through trade with allies and partners
- a plan for improvements to mapping the United States and its mineral resources
- recommendations to streamline lease permitting and review processes,
- ways to increase discovery, production, and domestic refining of critical minerals
This report will, as appropriate, include analyses and strategies to strengthen and sustain the supply chains for all minerals, and analyses and strategies targeted to minerals deemed critical based on this 2018 analysis. For example, because the permitting of minerals development activities is administered under existing mineral disposal laws and regulations, any recommendations to improve permitting processes for critical minerals will improve permitting processes for all minerals administered under the same laws and regulations by the Bureau of Land Management and other Federal land management agencies..
The full list of critical minerals includes the following—click a mineral’s name to find relevant statistics and publications:
- Aluminum (bauxite), used in almost all sectors of the economy
- Antimony, used in batteries and flame retardants
- Arsenic, used in lumber preservatives, pesticides, and semi-conductors
- Barite, used in cement and petroleum industries
- Beryllium, used as an alloying agent in aerospace and defense industries
- Bismuth, used in medical and atomic research
- Cesium, used in research and development
- Chromium, used primarily in stainless steel and other alloys
- Cobalt, used in rechargeable batteries and superalloys
- Fluorspar, used in the manufacture of aluminum, gasoline, and uranium fuel
- Gallium, used for integrated circuits and optical devices like LEDs
- Germanium, used for fiber optics and night vision applications
- Graphite (natural), used for lubricants, batteries, and fuel cells
- Hafnium, used for nuclear control rods, alloys, and high-temperature ceramics
- Helium, used for MRIs, lifting agent, and research
- Indium, mostly used in LCD screens
- Lithium, used primarily for batteries
- Magnesium, used in furnace linings for manufacturing steel and ceramics
- Manganese, used in steelmaking
- Niobium, used mostly in steel alloys
- Platinum group metals, used for catalytic agents
- Potash, primarily used as a fertilizer
- Rare earth elements group, primarily used in batteries and electronics
- Rhenium, used for lead-free gasoline and superalloys
- Rubidium, used for research and development in electronics
- Scandium, used for alloys and fuel cells
- Strontium, used for pyrotechnics and ceramic magnets
- Tantalum, used in electronic components, mostly capacitors
- Tellurium, used in steelmaking and solar cells
- Tin, used as protective coatings and alloys for steel
- Titanium, overwhelmingly used as a white pigment or metal alloys
- Tungsten, primarily used to make wear-resistant metals
- Uranium, mostly used for nuclear fuel
- Vanadium, primarily used for titanium alloys
- Zirconium, used in the high-temperature ceramics industries
Under the Executive Order, these commodities qualify as “critical minerals” because each has been identified as a non-fuel mineral or mineral material that is essential to the economic and national security of the United States, that has a supply chain vulnerable to disruption, and that serves an essential function in the manufacturing of a product, the absence of which would have significant consequences for the economy or national security.
Link here to view the article on USGS website
Tertiary Minerals #TYM – Half yearly report 2018 – focussed on near term revenue generating acquisition
Tertiary Minerals plc, the AIM-traded company building a strategic position in the fluorspar sector, announces its unaudited interim results for the six months ended 31 March 2018.
Operational Summary for the six months ending 31 March 2018:
Acquisition Opportunities
· Following the evaluation of a number of potential fluorspar project acquisitions, the Company is now focusing its efforts on one particular project that has the potential to generate revenue in the near term
· Early stage due diligence and negotiations are progressing
· There is no guarantee that the acquisition will proceed at this stage
Partnership with Global Commodities Trading Group
· Non-binding Memorandum of Understanding signed with Possehl Erzkontor GmbH & Co. KG (wholly owned subsidiary of CREMER) in November 2017
· Intention for Possehl and the Company to enter into a definitive sales and purchase agreement, if and when the Tertiary projects reach commercial viability, whereby Possehl commit to purchase a minimum of 70% of commercial grade acid-spar to be produced at Tertiary’s three fluorspar projects
· As a condition of the Offtake Agreement Possehl, will provide part of the pre-financing to Tertiary, where funds will be advanced by Possehl to Tertiary to assist the Company in meeting its working capital needs and/or its capital investment needs for the development of its current and future fluorspar projects
Storuman Fluorspar Project, Sweden – Exploitation (Mine) Permit Progress
· Recent positive meetings have been held between the head of The Swedish Mining Inspectorate, The County Administrative Board of Västerbotten and the Company
· Comprehensive supplementary reports and a legal statement have been submitted to Swedish Mining Inspectorate – requested as part of the Mine Permit re-assessment process
· The in-depth analysis shows that the Company’s proposed mining operations at Storuman, with mitigation measures proposed, will have only a minimal impact on reindeer husbandry and that there will be no impact on the Natura 2000 area
· The Swedish Mining Inspectorate will now assess feedback from key stakeholders and the Company remains hopeful for a positive decision regarding the award of the Mine Permit in the near future
MB Fluorspar Project, Nevada, USA – Metallurgical Testwork Progress
· Scoping Study level bench scale metallurgical testwork progressing at SGS Lakefield in Canada with the aim of producing commercial grade acid-spar and mica
· Early testwork has indicated that the ore is metallurgically complex, presenting certain processing challenges, and therefore the Company has engaged the services of one of the world’s leading consultant fluorspar metallurgists to assist with the testwork
· The Company along with the consultant metallurgist are now scoping the next phase of testwork following recent positive developments
Lassedalen Fluorspar Project, Norway
· The project continues to be a lower priority for the Company given the commitments on its other larger/more advanced fluorspar projects and acquisition opportunities
· The Company has made the decision not to proceed with the purchase of land and historic mine workings from Norwegian aluminium producer, Hydro, on which part of the Lassedalen fluorspar project sits
· The Company continues to control exploration rights on the Hydro land and all other landholder parcels on which the project sits, through a combination of expropriation rights, exploration licences and landholder agreements
Kaaresselkä and Kiekerömaa Gold Projects, Finland
· Following the sale of the two projects in March 2017 to Aurion Resources, the Company sold its shares in Aurion Resources (paid as part initial consideration) in November 2017, resulting in a profit of £31,264
· The Company retains pre-production and net smelter royalty interest in the projects
· Aurion is a Canadian listed exploration company with primary focus on the development of its Finnish gold projects, several of which are under joint venture with B2Gold. Kinross Gold Corporation are also significant shareholders of Aurion.
Financial Results – Summary:
· Operating Loss for the six-month period of £170,880 comprises:
o Revenue of £110,554; less
o Administration costs of £269,480 (which includes non-cash share based payments of £3,998); and
o Pre-licence and reconnaissance exploration costs totalling £11,954
· Total Group Loss of £133,539 is after charging:
o Gain on disposal of available for sale investment of £37,263
o Interest income of £78
· 362,554 Ordinary Shares were issued during the reporting period to directors in lieu of fees at a price of 1.875 pence per share
· 41,666,670 Ordinary Shares were issued during the reporting period by way of placing, in December 2017, at a price of 1.2 pence per share.
|
Enquiries Tertiary Minerals plc Patrick Cheetham, Executive Chairman Richard Clemmey, Managing Director
|
+44 (0)1625 838 679 |
|
SP Angel Corporate Finance LLP Nominated Adviser & Joint Broker Ewan Leggat / Lindsay Mair
|
+44 (0) 20 3470 0470 |
Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) Disclosure
Certain information contained in this announcement would have been deemed inside information for the purposes of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 until the release of this announcement.
Notes to Editors
Tertiary Minerals plc (ticker symbol ‘TYM’) is an AIM-traded mineral exploration and development company building a significant strategic position in the fluorspar sector. Fluorspar is an essential raw material in the chemical, steel and aluminium industries. Tertiary controls two significant Scandinavian projects (Storuman in Sweden and Lassedalen in Norway) and a large deposit of strategic significance in Nevada, USA (MB Project).
CAUTIONARY NOTICE
The news release may contain certain statements and expressions of belief, expectation or opinion which are forward looking statements, and which relate, inter alia, to the Company’s proposed strategy, plans and objectives or to the expectations or intentions of the Company’s directors. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors beyond the control of the Company that could cause the actual performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from such forward-looking statements. Accordingly, you should not rely on any forward-looking statements and save as required by the AIM Rules for Companies or by law, the Company does not accept any obligation to disseminate any updates or revisions to such forward-looking statements.
Chairman’s Statement
I am pleased to present our Interim Report for the six-month period ended 31 March 2018.
The Company’s plan to build a strategic position in the fluorspar sector has attracted the support of global commodities trading group, Possehl, part of the CREMER Group, with the signing of an important Memorandum of Understanding. This (“MOU”), whilst non-binding, paves the way for a definitive sales and purchase agreement for fluorspar from the Company’s projects and, importantly, extends to the provision of pre-financing for commercial production and lends support to the Company’s ambitions to develop not only its existing projects but to acquire a near-term revenue generating project.
The Company has evaluated a number of possible acquisition opportunities in the reporting period. Whilst most of these have been rejected for various reasons, one project opportunity is currently being taken forward through early due diligence and negotiations with the current owners. There is no guarantee that the acquisition will proceed at this stage.
Work on the Company’s existing fluorspar projects in Europe and North America has largely focused on the Storuman Project in Sweden. The re-assessment process for the Company’s Exploitation (Mine) Permit application for our Storuman Fluorspar Project in Sweden has consumed considerable management time to meet an April 2018 deadline for the submission of supplementary reports and legal statements in support of the grant of the permit.
Whilst the Storuman mine permit was originally granted in 2016, the government returned the permit case, along with many other cases, back to the Swedish Mining Inspectorate for re-assessment following a Supreme Court decision to overturn the grant of a third-party mining company’s mine permit in the south of Sweden. The re-assessment is intended to consider the impact of mining in the concession area on a wider surrounding area. The Company has addressed these issues with detailed impact and mitigation studies and, after consultation with certain stakeholders, has submitted comprehensive additional information that demonstrates minimal impact with the mitigation measures proposed. We are hopeful of a favourable outcome in the near future.
In Nevada, USA, our previous exploration on the MB Project has defined a very large fluorspar resource with varying metallurgical characteristics in different zones. The zone of mineralisation that is most immediately accessible to open-pit mining is the most metallurgically complex. Nevertheless, I am pleased that progress is now being made in scoping study level testwork towards production of acid-grade fluorspar as well as a by-product industrial filler grade mica. Testwork continues under the guidance of our specialist consultants.
In Norway, work at our Lassedalen Fluorspar Project has assumed a lower priority due to its smaller fluorspar resource and a decision was made not to proceed with the purchase of land from large Norwegian aluminium producer, Hydro, a forerunner company of which was responsible for mining fluorspar at Lassedalen in World War II.
The pricing environment for fluorspar has continued to strengthen, particularly for delivery into Europe where, after a period of disconnect, prices are now catching up with Chinese domestic prices which have traditionally set the pricing benchmark. Downstream processors of fluorochemicals have recently reported strong sales and increased prices.
Earlier in the reporting period we announced the sale of our shareholding in Canadian TSX-listed Aurion Resources Ltd which we received as part payment for the sale of our Finnish gold projects. This resulted in a profit of £31,264 on the original transactional value and with good timing we achieved a price per share substantially above the current prevailing price. We will, however, continue to share in any of Aurion’s future success on these projects as we are entitled to further payments on the definition of Ore Reserves and Mineral Resources and a royalty on production.
We look forward to reporting further progress through the rest of this financial year.
Patrick L Cheetham
Executive Chairman
22 May 2018
Consolidated Income Statement
for the six months to 31 March 2018
|
Six months to 31 March 2018 Unaudited |
Six months to 31 March 2017 Unaudited |
Twelve months to 30 September 2017 Audited |
|||
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
|||
Revenue |
110,554 |
134,885 |
241,024 |
||
|
|
|||||
Administration costs |
(269,480) |
(286,654) |
(550,229) |
||
|
|
|||||
Pre-licence and other exploration costs |
(11,954) |
(4,371) |
(30,617) |
||
|
|
|||||
|
Operating loss |
(170,880) |
(156,140) |
(339,822) |
||
|
Impairment of available for sale investment |
– |
(55,987) |
(55,987) |
||
|
Profit on disposal of available for sale investment |
37,263 |
– |
– |
||
|
Interest receivable |
78 |
277 |
277 |
||
|
Loss before income tax |
(133,539) |
(211,850) |
(395,532) |
||
|
Income tax |
– |
– |
– |
||
|
Loss for the period attributable to equity holders of the parent |
(133,539) |
(211,850) |
(395,532) |
||
|
Loss per share – basic and diluted (pence) (Note 2) |
(0.04) |
(0.08) |
(0.14) |
Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income
for the six months to 31 March 2018
|
Six months to 31 March 2018 Unaudited |
Six months to 31 March 2017 Unaudited |
Twelve months to 30 September 2017 Audited |
|||
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
|||
Loss for the period |
(133,539) |
(211,850) |
(395,532) |
||
|
Other comprehensive income:
|
|||||
Items that could be reclassified subsequentlyto the Income Statement: |
|||||
Fair value movement on available for sale investment |
(111,316) |
(54,755) |
122,753 |
||
Foreign exchange translation differences on foreign currency net investments in subsidiaries |
(209,948) |
59,852 |
(15,442) |
||
Items that have been reclassified subsequentlyto the Income Statement: |
|||||
|
Amount reclassified on disposal of available for sale investment |
(37,263) |
– |
– |
||
Total comprehensive income/(loss) for the period attributable to equity holders of the parent |
(492,066) |
(206,753) |
(288,221) |
Company Registration Number 03821411
Consolidated Statement of Financial Position
at 31 March 2018
|
As at 31 March 2018 Unaudited |
As at 31 March 2017 Unaudited |
As at 30 September 2017 Audited |
|||
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
|||
Non-current assets |
|||||
Intangible assets |
4,406,689 |
4,497,712 |
4,508,015 |
||
|
Property, plant & equipment |
2,463 |
6,607 |
4,361 |
||
|
Available for sale investment |
164,391 |
231,463 |
408,971 |
||
|
4,573,543 |
4,735,782 |
4,921,347 |
|||
|
Current assets |
|||||
|
Receivables |
95,668 |
86,975 |
94,253 |
||
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
474,052 |
145,212 |
159,278 |
||
|
569,720 |
232,187 |
253,531 |
|||
|
Current liabilities |
|||||
|
Trade and other payables |
(75,464) |
(62,555) |
(75,808) |
||
Net current assets |
494,256 |
169,632 |
177,723 |
||
Net assets |
5,067,799 |
4,905,414 |
5,099,070 |
||
Equity |
|||||
Called up Ordinary Shares |
35,910 |
2,670,769 |
31,708 |
||
Deferred Shares |
2,644,062 |
2,644,062 |
|||
Share premium account |
9,784,363 |
9,066,769 |
9,331,768 |
||
Merger reserve |
131,096 |
131,096 |
131,096 |
||
Share option reserve |
204,522 |
254,566 |
259,690 |
||
Available for sale investment reserve |
25,291 |
(3,638) |
173,870 |
||
Foreign currency reserve |
156,964 |
442,206 |
366,912 |
||
Accumulated losses |
(7,914,409) |
(7,656,354) |
(7,840,036) |
||
Equity attributable to the owners of the parent |
5,067,799 |
4,905,414 |
5,099,070 |
Consolidated Statement of Changes in Equity
|
Ordinary Share Capital |
Deferred Shares |
Share Premium Account |
Merger Reserve |
Share Warrant Reserve |
Available for Sale Reserve |
Foreign Currency Reserve |
Accumulated Losses |
Total |
|
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
|
|
At 30 September 2016 |
2,669,442 |
– |
9,066,735 |
131,096 |
343,486 |
51,117 |
382,354 |
(7,539,696) |
5,104,534 |
|
Loss for the period |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
(211,850) |
(211,850) |
|
Change in fair value |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
(54,755) |
– |
– |
(110,742) |
|
Exchange differences |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
59,852 |
– |
59,852 |
|
Total comprehensive loss for the period |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
(54,755) |
59,852 |
(211,850) |
(206,753) |
|
Share issue |
1,327 |
– |
34 |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
1,361 |
|
Share based payments expense |
– |
– |
– |
– |
6,272 |
– |
– |
– |
6,272 |
|
Transfer of expired warrants |
– |
– |
– |
– |
(95,192) |
– |
– |
95,192 |
– |
|
At 31 March 2017 |
2,670,769 |
– |
9,066,769 |
131,096 |
254,566 |
(3,638) |
442,206 |
(7,656,354) |
4,905,414 |
|
Loss for the period |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
(183,682) |
(183,682) |
|
Change in fair value |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
177,508 |
– |
– |
177,508 |
|
Exchange differences |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
(75,294) |
– |
(75,294) |
|
Total comprehensive loss for the period |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
177,508 |
(75,294) |
(183,682) |
(81,468) |
|
Share split |
(2,644,062) |
2,644,062 |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
Share issue |
5,001 |
– |
264,999 |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
270,000 |
|
Share based payments expense |
– |
– |
– |
5,124 |
– |
– |
– |
5,124 |
|
|
At 30 September 2017 |
31,708 |
2,644,062 |
9,331,768 |
131,096 |
259,690 |
173,870 |
366,912 |
(7,840,036) |
5,099,070 |
|
Loss for the period |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
(170,802) |
(170,802) |
|
Change in fair value |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
(111,316) |
– |
– |
(111,316) |
|
Transfer of disposals to income statement |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
(37,263) |
– |
37,263 |
– |
|
Exchange differences |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
(209,948) |
– |
(209,948) |
|
Total comprehensive loss for the period |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
(148,579) |
(209,948) |
(133,539) |
(492,066) |
|
Share issue |
4,202 |
– |
452,595 |
– |
– |
– |
– |
– |
456,797 |
|
Share based payments expense |
– |
– |
– |
– |
3,998 |
– |
– |
– |
3,998 |
|
Transfer of expired warrants |
– |
– |
– |
– |
(59,166) |
– |
– |
59,166 |
– |
At 31 March 2018 |
35,910 |
2,644,062 |
9,784,363 |
131,096 |
204,522 |
25,291 |
156,964 |
(7,914,409) |
5,067,799 |
Consolidated Statement of Cash Flows
for the six months to 31 March 2018
|
Six months to 31 March 2018 Unaudited |
Six months to 31 March 2017 Unaudited |
Twelve months to 30 September 2017 Audited |
|||
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
|||
Operating activity |
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
Operating loss |
(170,880) |
(156,140) |
(339,822) |
||
|
Depreciation charge |
2,003 |
3,265 |
5,910 |
||
|
Shares issued in lieu of net wages |
6,797 |
1,361 |
1,361 |
||
|
Share based payment charge |
3,998 |
6,272 |
11,396 |
||
|
Non-cash additions to available for sale investment |
– |
(52,735) |
(52,735) |
||
|
(Increase)/decrease in receivables |
(1,415) |
18,057 |
10,779 |
||
|
Increase/(decrease) in payables |
(344) |
(29,933) |
(16,680) |
||
|
Net cash outflow from operating activity |
(159,841) |
(209,853) |
(379,791) |
||
|
Investing activity |
|||||
|
Interest received |
78 |
277 |
277 |
||
|
Development expenditures |
(102,415) |
(108,558) |
(190,172) |
||
|
Disposal of exploration asset |
– |
15,000 |
‘ |
15,000 |
|
|
Disposal of available for sale investment |
133,264 |
– |
– |
||
|
Purchase of property, plant & equipment |
(105) |
(87) |
(486) |
||
|
Net cash outflow from investing activity |
30,822 |
(93,368) |
(175,381) |
||
|
Financing activity |
|||||
|
Issue of share capital (net of expenses) |
450,000 |
– |
270,000 |
||
|
Net cash inflow from financing activity |
450,000 |
– |
270,000 |
||
|
Net (decrease)/increase in cash and cash equivalents |
320,981 |
(303,221) |
(285,172) |
||
|
Cash and cash equivalents at start of period |
159,278 |
448,474 |
448,474 |
||
|
Exchange differences |
(6,207) |
(41) |
(4,024) |
||
|
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period |
474,052 |
145,212 |
159,278 |
Notes to the Interim Statement
1. Basis of preparation
The consolidated interim financial information has been prepared in accordance with the accounting policies that are expected to be adopted in the Group’s full financial statements for the year ending 30 September 2018 which are not expected to be significantly different to those set out in Note 1 of the Group’s audited financial statements for the year ended 30 September 2017. These are based on the recognition and measurement principles of IFRS in issue as adopted by the European Union (EU) or that are expected to be adopted and effective at 30 September 2018. The financial information has not been prepared (and is not required to be prepared) in accordance with IAS 34. The accounting policies have been applied consistently throughout the Group for the purposes of preparation of this financial information.
The financial information in this statement relating to the six months ended 31 March 2018 and the six months ended 31 March 2017 has neither been audited nor reviewed by the Auditors, pursuant to guidance issued by the Auditing Practices Board. The financial information presented for the year ended 30 September 2017 does not constitute the full statutory accounts for that period. The Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ended 30 September 2017 have been filed with the Registrar of Companies. The Independent Auditor’s Report on the Annual Report and Financial Statement for the year ended 30 September 2017 was unqualified, although did draw attention to matters by way of emphasis in relation to going concern, and did not contain a statement under 498(2) or 498(3) of the Companies Act 2006.
The directors prepare annual budgets and cash flow projections for a 15 month period. These projections include the proceeds of future fundraising necessary within the period to meet the Company’s and Group’s planned discretionary project expenditures and to maintain the Company and Group as a going concern. Although the Company has been successful in raising finance in the past, there is no assurance that it will obtain adequate finance in the future. This represents a material uncertainty related to events or conditions which may cast significant doubt on the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern and, therefore, that it may be unable to realise its assets and discharge its liabilities in the normal course of business. However, the directors have a reasonable expectation that they will secure additional funding when required to continue meeting corporate overheads and exploration costs for the foreseeable future and therefore believe that the going concern basis is appropriate for the preparation of the financial statements.
2. Loss per share
Loss per share has been calculated on the attributable loss for the period and the weighted average number of shares in issue during the period.
|
Six months to 31 March 2018 Unaudited |
Six months to 31 March 2017 Unaudited |
Twelve months to 30 September 2017 Audited |
|
Loss for the period (£) |
(133,539) |
(211,850) |
(395,532) |
|
Weighted average shares in issue (No.) |
343,522,305 |
266,987,238 |
284,429,468 |
|
Basic and diluted loss per share (pence) |
(0.04) |
(0.08) |
(0.14) |
The loss attributable to ordinary shareholders and the weighted average number of ordinary shares used for the purpose of calculating diluted earnings per share are identical to those used to calculate the basic earnings per ordinary share. This is because the exercise of share warrants would have the effect of reducing the loss per ordinary share and is therefore not dilutive under the terms of IAS33.
3. Share capital
During the six months to 31 March 2018 the following share issues took place:
An issue of 41,666,670 0.01p Ordinary Shares at 1.2p per share, by way of placing, for a total consideration of £500,000 before expenses (6 December 2017).
An issue of 72,554 0.01p Ordinary Shares at 1.875p per share, to a director, in satisfaction of directors’ fees, for a total consideration of £1,360 (31 January 2018).
An issue of 290,000 0.01p Ordinary Shares at 1.875p per share, to a director, in satisfaction of directors’ fees, for a total consideration of £5,437 (31 January 2018).
Tertiary Minerals #TYM – Total voting rights
Tertiary Minerals plc, the AIM traded company building a strategic position in the fluorspar sector announces that in accordance with Financial Conduct Authority’s Disclosure and Transparency Rules, the total issued share capital of the Company with voting rights is 359,106,157 ordinary shares.
The above figure of 359,106,157 ordinary shares may be used by shareholders in the Company as the denominator for the calculations by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change in their interest in, the share capital of the Company under the DTR.
|
Enquiries Tertiary Minerals plc Patrick Cheetham, Executive Chairman Richard Clemmey, Managing Director
|
+44 (0)1625 838 679 |
|
SP Angel Corporate Finance LLP Nominated Adviser & Joint Broker Ewan Leggat / Lindsay Mair
|
+44 (0)203 470 0470 |
|
Beaufort Securities Ltd Joint Broker Elliot Hance
|
+44 (0)207 382 8300 |
Notes to Editors
Tertiary Minerals plc (ticker symbol ‘TYM’) is an AIM-traded mineral exploration and development company building a significant strategic position in the fluorspar sector. Fluorspar is an essential raw material in the chemical, steel and aluminium industries. Tertiary controls two significant Scandinavian projects (Storuman in Sweden and Lassedalen in Norway) and a large deposit of strategic significance in Nevada USA (MB Project).
Vanguard – US seeks to boost local production of 35 minerals, including Fluorspar
Africa’s mineral export will be hit very soon as the United States plans to boost domestic production of 35 critical minerals including uranium, cobalt and lithium, in pursuance of President Donald Trump’s America First policy.
The US said the 35 minerals are critical materials used in basic manufacturing, batteries and electronics.
In the full list are: Aluminum (bauxite), antimony, arsenic, barite, beryllium, bismuth, cesium, chromium, cobalt, fluorspar, gallium, germanium, graphite (natural), hafnium, helium, indium, lithium, magnesium, manganese, niobium, platinum group metals, potash, rare earth elements group, rhenium, rubidium, scandium, strontium, tantalum, tellurium, tin, titanium, tungsten, uranium, vanadium, and zirconium.
In trying to boost domestic production, America’s aim is to reduce its reliance on foreign suppliers, the Interior Department said on Friday.
The move echoes America’s ramping up of shale oil production during Barack Obama’s era that broke OPEC’s control of the crude oil market and depressed prices.
It was the department’s first step to carry out a December presidential order to break U.S. dependence on foreign minerals.
Lithium and cobalt are vital components of the rechargeable batteries that power electric vehicles. Battery makers and auto companies such as Tesla Inc and Volkswagen AG have been hunting for long-term supplies of the minerals.
“Any shortage of these resources constitutes a strategic vulnerability for the security and prosperity of the United States,” said Tim Petty, assistant secretary of the Interior for water and science.
The administration wants to identify new domestic sources of critical minerals; increase domestic exploration, mining and recycling; give miners and producers electronic access to better mapping and geological data; and streamline leasing and permitting for new mines.
It will be challenging to boost U.S. production of potash, used to make fertilizer for farmers, said Canada’s Nutrien Ltd, North America’s largest potash producer.
“There’s just not reserves that are economic in the United States, but there are lots in Canada,” said spokesman Richard Downey. “I think that the U.S. recognises that it’s a critical nutrient for corn and grain farmers, in particular, and they need access to the Canadian potash.”
The department seeks public comment until March 19.
Raising U.S. output of non-fuel minerals and fossil fuel resources is part of the Trump administration’s America First policy, aimed at boosting U.S. exports while curbing imports using tariffs and other protectionist measures.
Read more at: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2018/02/us-seeks-boost-local-production-35-minerals/
Make acid grade again: The potential for a resurgence in US fluorspar production – by Michael Greenfield, Industrial Minerals
Article from Industrial Minerals
By MICHAEL GREENFIELD
Published: Thursday, 08 February 2018
President Trump is set on ensuring US demand for fluorspar is served by domestic production, but with annual demand at 400,000 tonnes and effectively zero production, Industrial Minerals delves into the scope for meaningful fluorspar production in the US.
President Trump’s executive order on December 20, 2017, was administered on the basis of identifying and securing industrial minerals that are deemed critical to the United States’ economy. Yet production of fluorspar, which made the list, has been minimal since 1995, when 51,000 tonnes was produced.
The US natural fluorspar production market has been more or less dormant for over two decades despite a relative abundance of 4 million tonnes of proven reserves.
Historically, mining fluorspar in the US has been expensive, and was the dominant reason for mines closing down. But environmental clampdowns on polluting production in China has increased production costs in the Asian country and narrowed the cost gap between the US and China.
Hastie Mining, based in Illinois, US, produces 10,000 tonnes per year of fluorspar, most of which is metal-grade spar, 90% CaF2 purity or lower and used for production of metals. Meanwhile, the US imports around 82.5% of its fluorspar for manufacturing hydrofluoric acid, which requires 97% CaF2 fluorspar.
Bar Hastie’s production, the US imports all of its near-400,000 tpy of consumption. This comes primarily from four markets; Mexico, Vietnam, South Africa and Spain, although small amounts are sourced from Mongolia, China, Russia and the United Kingdom, according to 2016 data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS).
Around 320,000 tonnes of the total imports are acid grade, and almost all of which is accounted for by end-users Chemours and Honeywell.
Globally, 88% of demand for fluorspar comes from three sectors; steelmaking, aluminium smelting and the production of hydrofluoric acid.
Some 40% of fluorspar is required for manufacturing hydrofluoric acid, of this 60% is required for flurochemicals.
The US currently produces around 85 million tonnes of steel and 6 million tonnes of aluminium. The steel market is growing, and aluminium could soon receive a boost from incoming protectionist policies on Chinese products, according to Metal Bulletin Research.
The increasing cost of imported fluorspar
With strong and growing demand and US capacity at a minimum, it seems as though making the fluorspar supply chain secure is mission impossible.
Certainly there is the demand, although the time taken between commissioning projects, breaking ground, correcting issues in the production line, assuring quality and then delivering capacity means the effect of planned additional supply will not be felt in the short term.
There is also the issue of President Trump’s stance on Nafta, an agreement he dubbed “one of the worst in history” due to the trade deficit it created with the signatories. Ending Nafta is likely to be adverse for Mexican producers, who exported 267,000 tonnes of fluorspar to the US in 2016, according to the USGS.
Mexico has a $63 billion annual trade surplus with the US whereas Canada’s trade surplus comes to $12.5 billion, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, and on that basis it is unclear whether this would affect Canada Fluorspar’s anticipated 200,000 tpy capacity, which is due to hit the market in the coming months.
With the market extremely tight, Canada Fluorspar’s output will provide some reassurance to the two US majors, who have received some of the first sales from the Canadian start-up, Industrial Minerals understands.
“If I had an additional 100,000 tonnes, I would have no problem selling it, judging from the serious inquiries I have had,” one producer outside of the US told Industrial Minerals.
The market tightness is reflected in high fluorspar prices. Industrial Minerals assessed acidspar 97% CaF2, wet filtercake prices, fob China at $480-520 per tonne on February 8, which one India-based consumer described as “the highest I have ever seen, in my 15-year career.”
Industrial Minerals understands that Chinese consumers have looked to buy material from Mongolia recently, although with limited success.
The cost of Chinese material went up on January 18 to $480-520 per tonne from $400-420 previously for acidspar 97% CaF2, wet filtercake, fob China, on a plethora of issues which can be partially linked to the rising cost of production due to the environmental controls now in place.
The high prices in China reinforce arguments in the market that fluorspar supply should be secured.
US consumers still have access to reasonably-price Mexican fluorspar, which is home to the world’s largest producer, Mexichem. The price for acidspar, 97% CaF2, dry filtercake, <5ppm,fob, Tampico, Mexico has been flat at $280-310 per tonne for several months, but if the market trend of China exporting very little continues or it becomes a net importer, that could place a higher demand on Mexican material and push the price up.
Domestic production
Should the cost of imported fluorspar continue to rise, the price differential between imported and domestic fluorspar could narrow further and make US production an attractive prospect once again.
Domestically, the scope to expand fluorspar production and secure the supply chain is small. The Hastie Mining operation is primarily a limestone quarry with some deposits of fluorspar which run like veins through the rock.
The company imports around 100,000 tpy of fluorspar, while locally-produced material costs around 20% higher than imports, according to Don Hastie, partner at Hastie Mining.
But Hastie Mining has been developing a deposit in Kentucky for the past three years. It will have capacity to produce 20,000 tpy of fluorspar when it comes online in the second half of 2018. The Illinois quarry operation will then cease production because of the lower head grade quality – 40% as opposed to 55%.
The Kentucky mine is financially more viable as it is solely a fluorspar operation, meaning the costs are dramatically reduced to process fluorspar for sale and there is a “different thickness of ore material,” according to Hastie.
There were no difficulties in processing the fluorspar from the limestone quarry though, Hastie added.
Nevada and California in the US also have fluorspar deposits, although no operations exist in California while UK-based Tertiary Mining #TYM is developing a mine in Nevada where the company has 2,500 acres under license.
There is 86 million tonnes of ore in this deposit, at 10% head grade, although it is believed that there are higher grades further down.
The company expects it will be able to produce in excess of 100,000 tpy of fluorspar when operational within the next five years, although this is subject to production costs, market status and offtake agreements.
This equates to around 25% of current US demand, and a few percentage points lower than that once the supply reaches the market accounting for growth in demand. That said, the company plans to export its material, it said, and has evaluated the potential for exporting to Asia from San Francisco, California.
Tertiary has signed an offtake agreement with Germany-based mineral trader Possehl Erzkontor. Under this, Possehl will take a minimum of 70% of acidspar production from Tertiary’s three sites which also include Sweden and Norway. Possehl also provided pre-financing to Tertiary.
In a recent statement made to the London Stock Exchange, the company said it is progressing the scoping study, having completed flotation test work. Still outstanding is project feasibility, de-risking and development phases, and assessments of costs, further offtake agreements, market situation for when the project goes live and economies of scale, Industrial Minerals understands.
Yet with domestic production coming at a premium, and the world’s biggest fluorspar producer just across the southern border in Mexico having escaped the price spikes seen in China and South Africa, some market participants question whether the US needs domestic production.
And it begs the question why fluorspar has been placed in the critical minerals category by the Trump administration when its security seems unobtainable. It could be related to President Trump’s promise to secure US jobs and US business, with Chemours and Honeywell both sitting within 2017’s Fortune 500 list.
Additional supply will go some way to soften the reliance on foreign imports, but until any significant amount of acid grade production hits the US market, importers will endure a large exposure to global market conditions, and prices.
Link here to view the article on IndMin website
Tertiary Minerals #TYM – Dr Y Alshammari now holds 3.03 percent of the company
Tertiary Minerals plc, the AIM traded company building a strategic position in the fluorspar sector has today been made aware that Dr Y Alshammari is now beneficially interested in 10,871,450 ordinary shares of the Company, representing 3.03 per cent. of the Company’s issued share capital.
Further information:
|
Enquiries
Tertiary Minerals plc Patrick Cheetham, Executive Chairman Richard Clemmey, Managing Director
|
+44 (0)1625 838 679 |
|
SP Angel Corporate Finance LLP Nominated Adviser & Joint Broker Ewan Leggat / Lindsay Mair
|
+44 (0)203 470 0470 |
|
Beaufort Securities Ltd Joint Broker Elliot Hance
|
+44 (0)207 382 8300 |
Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) Disclosure
Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) Disclosure Certain information contained in this announcement would have been deemed inside information for the purposes of Article 7 of Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 until the release of this announcement.
Notes to Editors
Tertiary Minerals plc (ticker symbol ‘TYM’) is an AIM-traded mineral exploration and development company building a significant strategic position in the fluorspar sector. Fluorspar is an essential raw material in the chemical, steel and aluminium industries. Tertiary controls two significant Scandinavian projects (Storuman in Sweden and Lassedalen in Norway) and a large deposit of strategic significance in Nevada USA (MB Project).
Tertiary Minerals #TYM – Total Voting Rights
Tertiary Minerals plc #TYM, the AIM traded company building a strategic position in the fluorspar sector announces that in accordance with Financial Conduct Authority’s Disclosure and Transparency Rules, the total issued share capital of the Company with voting rights is 358,743,603 ordinary shares.
The above figure of 358,743,603 ordinary shares may be used by shareholders in the Company as the denominator for the calculations by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change in their interest in, the share capital of the Company under the DTR.
|
Enquiries
Tertiary Minerals plc Patrick Cheetham, Executive Chairman Richard Clemmey, Managing Director
|
+44 (0)1625 838 679 |
|
SP Angel Corporate Finance LLP Nominated Adviser & Joint Broker Ewan Leggat / Lindsay Mair
|
+44 (0)203 470 0470 |
|
Beaufort Securities Ltd Joint Broker Elliot Hance
|
+44 (0)207 382 8300 |
Notes to Editors
Tertiary Minerals plc (ticker symbol ‘TYM’) is an AIM-traded mineral exploration and development company building a significant strategic position in the fluorspar sector. Fluorspar is an essential raw material in the chemical, steel and aluminium industries. Tertiary controls two significant Scandinavian projects (Storuman in Sweden and Lassedalen in Norway) and a large deposit of strategic significance in Nevada USA (MB Project).
British Fluorspar in UK mining revival. Fluorspar market upturn projected for 2018 – Tertiary Minerals #TYM
In the wake of Tertiary Minerals #TYM landmark deal with German commodities giant Possehl Erzkontor, an article on Industrial Minerals forum Imformed.com provides further evidence of an upturn in the global Fluorspar market.
Excerpt from Imformed.com
British Fluorspar’s rejuvenation of the Milldam Mine in Derbyshire, UK is one of several industrial mineral developments which have galvanised a perceived revival of UK mining opportunities in recent years.
UK developments in evaluating and mining fluorspar, barite, salt, gypsum, potash, polyhalite, and lithium were highlighted at the recent IOM3 conference “Current Developments in the UK Mining Industry”, held 4-5 October in London.
Milldam mine is situated in the Peak District National Park and was established in 1951. Operations ceased in 2010 and then restarted in 2013, following British Fluorspar’s acquisition of the mine and Cavendish Mill in 2012.
British Fluorspar, which is owned by leading fluorochemicals manufacturer Fluorsid SpA, Italy, has developed the mine into a modern trackless underground mining operation using a sub-level open stoping system with an underground decline from the surface to mine the narrow vein sub-vertical orebody.
Robinson reported that the operation was coming to the end of its modernisation of equipment phase after a period of dewatering. The resource hosts fluorspar, but also lead and barite mineralisation, and is planned to be mined for 20 years.
Key to the success of Milldam has been the switch from open pit mining to mostly underground operations, clearly reducing its environmental footprint on the surface. Up to 2010, >90% of operations were open pit; by 2016 this had been reduced to a mere 15%.
“There is a future for underground mining in the UK and in Europe. We have to make underground mining in the UK more efficient, that is the future. The challenge is to remain self-sufficient in this highly regulated environment.” said Robinson.
Robinson acknowledged the recently published European Commission (EC) reassessment of its List of Critical Raw Materials (CRM), in which fluorspar is again listed as a CRM.
According to the EC, the EU has an overall import reliance of 70% for its fluorspar requirements. While China accounts for some 64% of world fluorspar supply, Mexico is the EU’s main source of fluorspar, accounting for 27% of demand (China accounts for 17%).
Interestingly, the 2017 EC CRM Review included barite for the first time, with an EU import reliance of 80% (China, 44%, India, 18%). British Fluorspar produces around 10,000 tpa barite, as well as 65,000 tpa processed fluorspar.
……Further to IMFORMED’s earlier report on fluorspar developments in South Africa, SepFluor Ltd appears to be progressing well, if a little ahead of schedule, with its Nokeng project with the plant expected to be completed by August 2018, with final handover expected by February 2019 (180,000 tpa acidspar, 30,000 tpa metspar).
In a recent interview with South Africa’s Mining Weekly, SepFluor CEO Rob Wagner considered that the fluorspar market has survived the bottoming out of prices from mid- to end-2016 and that 2017 was representing an upturn.
Robinson of British Fluorspar concurred to IMFORMED with this view, although Wagner went on to forecast “…a rising market over the next five to eight years.”
Certainly, prices have recovered during the year, hitting four-year highs and rising towards $400/t acidspar FOB China in September. According to Roskill Information Services, “The price of fluorspar generally is on a long-term upward trend.” Roskill’s take on the influence of China on the world fluorspar market will be presented at Fluorine Forum 2017.
Rising domestic demand from China’s fluorochemicals market has impacted supply for exports, although it must be noted that all mining and processing of Chinese minerals are being squeezed by antipollution inspections and the dynamite ban.
According to research by SepFluor, there will be a shortfall of fluorspar of 600,000-800,000 tonnes in global markets by 2026.
Link here to full Imformed.com article