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

Bullboard - Stock Discussion Forum St Andrew Goldfields Ord STADF

OTCPK:STADF - Post Discussion

St Andrew Goldfields Ord > RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:So no feedback ?
View:
Post by cre8value on Mar 26, 2015 12:07pm

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:So no feedback ?

Ted - It is a claim that is in dispute. The courts have to figure out if it is even VALID.
 I don't see the production from Holt mentioned on the Kiska website from Dec 18, 2013. Holt makes up the majority of the current oz's produced. You would think Kiska would have called that out if they thought they could get some money out of it.

Hislop is not even in production now.  So it looks like current Holloway oz. but that is just a guess from the news release. Holloway produced 23,780 oz last year out of the 90, 676.

I think AncasterMike is closer to the mark -  $5.00 - $7.00 per oz under question but that is a guess too. So what is this between $100,000 to $150,000 under dispute last year? That is just another guess. For a company with $20 million cash does that seem like much?  Please correct any of the above if you have additional information.  Notice that Kiska even say "alleges" below. 

From Kiska website.
"The Company alleges that, under the Agreement, St Andrew is obliged to make 0.5% NSR royalty payments in respect of both the near-mine and regional targets. Currently, several of the identified targets relate to producing St Andrew gold mines (Hislop Mine, Holloway Mine) and exploration prospects."
Comment by TedOwens on Mar 27, 2015 8:01am
Bottom line is that should St Andrew be in the position of having to pay out another half percent royalty from operations it will result in the company being non cash flow positive .......
Comment by AncasterMike on Mar 27, 2015 8:11am
Ted, 0.5% of $1072 is $5.35. $1077 all-in at today's price is still cash flow positive.
Comment by Curvature on Mar 29, 2015 12:14am
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by scratchgolfer on Mar 29, 2015 2:00am
Wow, why don't you bless us with your widom and knowledge CURVATURE.  it is ironic that I post this as I am not adding any adivice or information that will help investors on this board help make an educated decision on SAS. Perhaps you should try and aand do the same rather then belittling somome and comment how you acutally have cash to invest. REALLY! 
Comment by jollynik6 on Mar 29, 2015 8:37am
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by Curvature on Mar 29, 2015 7:52pm
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy