Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Fabled Silver Gold Corp T.FCO


Primary Symbol: V.FCO.H Alternate Symbol(s):  FBSGF

Fabled Silver Gold Corp. is a Canada-based company. The Company is focused on identifying new opportunities.


TSXV:FCO.H - Post by User

Comment by PAInvestoron Jun 29, 2019 12:36am
80 Views
Post# 29875639

RE:RE:RE: Trentosmentos

RE:RE:RE: TrentosmentosMy apologies Trentosmentos, you are right. I am mistaken.

Since you are not the other poster I alluded to, perhaps you could help with my analysis of this ECS/JRV situation then?

Key JRV assets:
  • Ugandan projects: only rocks chip samples to date and a 20 year old refinery -> unproven value IMO
  • Tanzanian projects: application license for Kabanga -> good asset but until granted, unproven value IMO plus the previous owners are Glencore and Barrick… do you believe they will just give up without a fight and what about other contenders who could be majors with strong balances? Plus with the recent change in Tanzanian mining laws, the sovereign risk has increased IMO
  • The African projects have no apparent synergies to Idaho and to say that JRV doesn’t need ECS is disingenuous, especially when A$5m of the recent JRV raise is contingent on the ECS merger.
  • IMO the African assets are likely to increase future dilution via their exploration expense/capex if they are pursued to their full potential
  • Australian assets: Nico-Young study was released to Sedar on June 19, 2019. Capex is A$1.1b and at current Ni and Co prices, it’s an uneconomic asset. Understand that this asset will be sold off but again, unproved value  
  • Cash balance: ~US$18m post raise – a short term tick from me but clearly to cover the Idaho capex of $124m, more dilution will be required
  • Management: a tentative tick from me, given how ECS has been run to date
Overview:
  • From what I can see, the only key immediate benefits ECS shareholders will receive are i.e. more cash and better management
  • But this is like saying a property investor with a nice house (ECS) should put it on fire sale simply because the current tenants are less than ideal (management)
  • Also, if JRV’s African assets are as tier 1 as you suggest, wouldn’t there just be 3 sets of potential capex burden (Idaho, Uganda and Tanzania) and hence massive further dilution down the track? Most juniors struggle to get one project going, you are confident that JRV can potentially manage up to 3 successfully?    

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>