The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
BTW porvenireal and FatherTedFeck are the same person. FTF accidentally replied as porvenireal a few days ago.
re all the xtr workers being qualified....well of course they are. If that ensured exploration success then gold would be 2 bucks an ounce!
Well that's ok. You can have a sleep, I'll still be around.
Chile is the world's top copper producer, as such it's a pretty mainstream location. Old mate was saying that it (ngex) is too rugged to build a 10km slurry pipe or conveyor belt or haul road, even though someone had evidently already build an entire processing plant there! So you can see why i didnt dignify that one with an answer.
FTF
I just took a look at your archive so that I can get the time right.
You stated your 1st post around 12 NOON + AND RIGHT NOW IT IS 9:48 PM IN THE UK.
All the convo is going round and round - XTR has issued RNS*s + Interviews.
Everyone on this forum has inputted their views ie shareholders of XTR.
So, 10 HRS OF THIS GOING ROUND AND ROUND AND SOME OF US NEED TO GO TO BED IN THE UK. I think you may be Canadian.
It would interest us all ie shareholders as to what is your objective given that answers have been given with references etc. In fact, we shareholders need to get on with our lives as we can be on STAND-BY ANSWERING 10 HRS all your views which is XTR is pah sort of thing?
Mr Colin Bird, Executive Chairman, XTR read the forums as he said in his interview/s as he wants to know what shareholders want or need to know.
So, we have input from the Chairman of XTR and I am sure he consults the technical team of the said Geo*s given that is their line of work ie qualifications and extensive experience at world class co*s like HEAD OF BHP AUSTRALIA-AFRICA on the board and doing the modelling with Mr Menzies, the consultant copper expert.
So, what is your MBO [management by objective]? No one can possibly spend 10 hrs answering as we shareholders would need a team given the Questions go round and round.
Thank you.
Yours respectfully.
Fri, 9 Apr 2021 @10PM
FTF im pretty sure that comment is exactly what someone told you last week when you started spouting bout some z list Chilean prospect off the beaten track down there. Maybe it was Dibs, Steve or maybe Docit or someone else from regular posters... they referenced the mine being on the Moon though, rather than Mt Everest so i see what you did there ;)
If only face palms were available for use on lse.co.uk
DOES THE QUESTION ARISE IE HOW TO MINE IT BY LAYMEN?
Mr Colin Bird, Executive Chairman, XTR is the CEO and is in charge. He was the former Head of Mining at Anglo-America and is a mining engineer. He said so as that is or was his job.
Then, XTR has Jeremy Read, former Head of BHP Australia -Africa. Does a Head of BHP, one of the world*s largest mining co*s NOT know how to contact the right people as that would be part of his remit ie ECONOMIC GEOLOGY?
Then, there is COBETTS MENZIES with Mr Mezies, the copper experts in Lachlan Fold also on the payroll including the PhD Geo.
Does all these TOP RANKING GEO*S WITH EXPERIENCE not know how to run this project together with Mr Bird.
Also, dont forget AA once OWNED RACECOURSE - they reviewed drill results, cores and did XRF on them. AA even drilled Footrot. Before Tooday owned Racecourse, Straits Resources who had revenues of A$932m owned Racecourse and they also did a lot of work on Racecourse. From their accounts etc, Straits said that Racecourse will be a large copper mine.
Surely, all these big co*s like AA know their stuff or else why would have wanted to have a 1ST REFUSAL BUY IN?
Who are laymen at this stage on a forum with NO QUALIFICATIONS, EXPERIENCE in mining at Tier 1 mining co*s discussing the board*s work?
That is for the above to discuss this with AA come the time or any other co?
Surely, there is no need for a layman to micro-manage such eminent C.V*S?
Yeeeah, but it's only saleable to some company who thinks that THEY can mine it, or that some JV partner can. I assure you, the topic does arise! If you drill out some new ore body on the top of Mt Everest, you can't expect to flog it off to some big Co without them perhaps wondering..."Hang on...how the F are we going to mine this at a profit???"
Typo: It should read UNNECESSARY to discuss block-caving WITHOUT an actual PFS.
With no PFS, its all conjecture given it is only at Hole 6.
Besides, RACECOURSE IS GOING TO BE SOLD - that was the objective from Day 1. So, XTR
will not be around to mine it. That*s from Mr Bird right from inception in Dec 2020 prior to starting drilling. This was Mr Bird*s 1st interview on Bushrangers.
At this moment in time, the subject brought up about block-cave is necessary.
Mr Colin Bird, Executive Chairmain, XTR has made it clear in his last 2 interviews:
"ATTRACTING MAJOR COPPER CO*S INTEREST."
followed by the next interview: "AA - then it will be to the ....world NEWCREST - RIO."
This is evidenced by the AA agreement ie option to purchase.
This was the original Management By Objectives by Mr Bird just like he sold Kiwara to First Quantum. Mr Bird does not want to retain Racecourse ie 20% as he wants to sell 100%.
So, how does block-cave come in? All this is subject to PFS as with all projects. So, how can this be discussed in all seriousness?
Empirically, CADIA-RIDGEWAY is cited in mining data as having block cave and sub-block cave. Cadia-Ridgeway is just next door to XTR*s Racecourse. In Newcrest*s accounts and reports they cite that Cadia-Ridgeway operates on low costs.
Edison also has said that BODA in the same Lachlan Fold as XTR*s Racecourse is similar to Cadia. Edison*s 8 Dec 2020 latest broker reports gives all the 11 drill hole results which I have cited more than once and they are even lower grade than XTR. Even then Edison said that with 1,000m strike x 1,000m depth, BODA is anywhere between 500Mt+ to 2.2 Billion @ GRADES 0.28 g/t au to 0.35 g/t au.
XTR*s is more copper at Hole 1 @0.33% cu EQ.
Boda is a one of the most talked about discoveries in the Lachlan Fold as they have managed to drill deep holes to some 1,000m + - which few co*s have been successful at ie deep hole.
1plus1 opex might be similar but capex will be larger for the block cave. You can't just treat the opex in isolation.
I prefer the green box
Ted - your claim "a block cave needs higher grade material than an open pit" is not factually correct. It's just not that simple.
Seriously - do some research on modern block cave mining and the operating cost comparability to open pit mining. Obviously there are many variables involved, but you might see why some of your "unimpeachable" statements draw such ire and ridicule on this board.
I'm now signing off for the weekend - have a good one.
1plus1, I was saying that - all else being equal - a block cave needs higher grade material than an open pit, in order to justify the higher capex. Surely that's fairly unimpeachable???
Ted, one of these days you could try doing a little bit of research and then thinking carefully before peppering your usual verbiage over this board. Your unique mix of nonsense, half-truths and ability to conflate information you're misunderstood from the internet is quite remarkable.
For example, this recent comment of yours is complete uninformed nonsense: "even the bulk methods like caving do have a much increased cut-off due to the greater expense regime".
I am keen to read well researched counter-arguments to the investment case for XTR. I think it is helpful for a lot of people on this board to regularly review and re-evaluate their investment thesis. However your writing style presents yourself as an informed authority on these matters when in fact the content you put out demonstrates you are utterly clueless and plain wrong in much of what you say.
Steve, it is an interesting and relevant fact that Racecourse is tipped over on it's side...this imo is a positive for the open pit mining, but a negative for the underground possibilities. Open pits usually stop at about 300 metres-ish, because beyond that you're increasingly spending your efforts moving too much worthless crap for every ton of paydirt. Some can go a lot deeper, due to the grade, the geometry or the processing route. But 300m is a good rough guide.
But when the pit stops, the underground mining methods must begin. But even the bulk methods like caving do have a much increased cut-off due to the greater expense regime. Grades that work in a 300m deep pit may not work at all for any sort of u/g scenario.
And the geometry of the mineralisation is crucial. If the orezone drifts off sideways, then you can't just build a big drawbell and collect it all caving for the next 50 years. Instead, you will have to replicate this big risky capital expenditure many times moving laterally...also know as ****ing money up against a wall.
Might resonate ...
Proverbs 26:4-5 – Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
It's a no-brainer really
My only concern would be that you have some insider knowledge... from your mate upstairs ;)
Thebestyet, don't tell me you prefer John CornHole MasterDebater? Surely not!
cyberiachas - There is also the cost of extracting the resource to consider as well as the location/jurisdiction. The Racecourse porphyry is close to the surface (mineralisation from 45m in some parts) and on it's side as opposed to going straight down... much easier, cheaper and quicker to get at. It is something CB referred to in the last interview.
It is a point I made to FTF last time he questioned the potential here but he ignored it i.e. if two assets have the same resource but one will costs £500m more to get at, then they don't have the same value do they? And sometimes the Majors have to invest many billions before they can get anything out of the ground. The Bushranger asset will therefore always command a premium over discoveries in remote regions, where the resource is deep underground and the terrain makes everything more difficult and expensive.
So do you take Fathertroll's 17p or John Cornford's 50p?
I know who's knowledge, experience and intelligence would get my vote
But I'll happily split the difference for Racecourse and then see what else we have
I did block FTF to start with and definitely doubt his motives!
but there are some arguments put forward by him that are worth reviewing, in the end they have been somewhat distorted and comparing "apples with pears" but worth the occasional review to confirm again the logic of the reasoning of the great find we seem to have here-
you do have to ask why he's posting here if there's so much better value in the middle of the andes etc and tbf now it is getting repetitive, because the same principles apply:
GT gold has 1.5mt cu eq INDICATED resource
XTR is targeting 2mt and by many calculations and estimates including that of the Chairman we could be looking a long way beyond that.
Have you seen where Tatooga is? On initial review it appears to be in the middle of nowhere. Very far north - very cold maybe? It is also within a Native American homeland which I'm sure brings additional complications and costs.
Of course Bushranger is 100 miles from sydney just past the beautiful blue mountains, very close to other large mining companies.
It is predominantly copper rather than a mix of mineral values - simplicity of production "this one will fly on copper alone"
We could easily be looking at a porphyry system.
Personally I would much rather have Bushranger than Tatooga although of course they have proved the asset for sale whereas we are confirming day by day the existence of our own, larger, more viable resource. Still time to buy in FTF or maybe relocate?
There you go, we were both wrong! Nice one.
Grossing up is a standard analysis method to see how much is the potential resource costed out at. How so? The investment bankers need to take 100% so that they can evaluate M & A sales price. Colin Bird, Executive Chairman, XTR said as much is an independent valuation will take in RECENT SALES, discount and price of commodity from recall in his interview.?
One can take 84.1% minus 100% = 15.9% already owned.
That is considered in accounting a carrying cost and has to be paid for and has to be added back into the takeover price. That will be the valuation to be carried in the books.
So, there is a subtle difference of whether it is looked at in an accounting way and for accuracy to be taken into account in the balance sheet etc notes.
Hope that clarifies.
FTF * s figure is wrong as it is NOT 17p as shown already.
No, on third thoughts, it's only 150%. (7 to 17.5)