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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
I find it comical that you use throwaway comments like you have below without being able to back them up, i.e. "CB’s inaccurate forward guidance" - which can easily be disproved by quoting you the FACTS, not my opinion, things that actually happened... hence the references.
So was CB's forward guidance actually off (as you stated)? - no, as shown in my post
Am I on an 'emotional rant'? - no, I'm backing myself because you're provoking me by suggesting I'm being emotional when actually I'm just stating facts and getting mildly frustrated that you're mocking me for that (?!)
Do you post basically whatever you want regardless of evidence? - yes, seemingly, and worryingly, even when called out on basic mistakes like using a wrong ounce figure for gold production you tell me you basically don't think it's that important (which btw, knowing a troy ounce is used for gold production and that weigh's approx 31.1g should be pretty basic knowledge for someone investing in/researching a gold company/trying to assess revenues/production figures.)
...and now you try to distract from the point I'm making by trying to throw CB under the bus for being inaccurate? - take a look at his figures, I think he was pretty bang on considering it's alluvials that have been producing the revenue he projected, after all, they can be a little all over the place.
The info is there for all to see, so you're right, in the interest of keeping a peaceful bb maybe I should leave it there.
Perhaps to you I'm being a fanatical, condescending piece of work who can't get enough of RNS's, but to me I'm being logical, pragmatic and perhaps most importantly, giving evidence for my statements, unlike some.
Not strictly true though Andrew, is it? You took some of the assumptions given by CB and then instead of just listening to what he had to say, you thought you knew better and then preceded to incorrectly calculate revenues claiming you knew what you were talking about... whilst making the most basic of mistakes leading to a 10% discrepancy that you "didn't think was that significant".
"Very revealing that you focus on my 10% error (and indeed other posters ‘errors’) and ignore the much more significant and inaccurate forward guidance CB gave at the time (grades / tph / etc). That proves you can’t rely on CB’s forward guidance as being accurate – as you seem to keep doing." - Yes because CB knows what he's talking about, you don't.
CB's forward guidance on the matter re Sino production figures:
-Based on district reportive grades of 0.5g/t and current gold price, the initial monthly income expected to be no less than US$160,000 and increasing to US$320,000 once the 2nd plant is fully operational
-Initial mining to take place no later than 15 October 2017 with a minimum thoughput of 200 tonnes per hour and a further 200 tonnes per hour to be achieved by 15 January 2018
Ref: https://www.investegate.co.uk/xtract-resources-plc/rns/manica-gold-alluvial-mining-contractor-agreement/201707111316417373K/ (invest igate link as strangely LSE doesn't have that RNS on file?!)
Alluvial production figures (n.b. Other contractors being involved at the start but dropped out (not being able to produce in the wet season etc.) so the numbers generally across most of the quarterlies of the past few years represent Sino's production - NB read through the RNS's if you want exact timelines of who operated when):
4th Quarter ended 31 December 2017
Explorator share of gold produced (equivalent ounces): 319
Explorator share of gold sold (equivalent ounces):210
Explorator attributable income from gold sales: US$218,000
1st Quarter ended 31 March 2018
Explorator share of gold produced (equivalent ounces): 297
Explorator share of gold sold (equivalent ounces): 314
Explorator attributable income from gold sales: US$333,000
2nd Quarter ended 30 June 2018
Explorator share of gold produced (equivalent ounces): 426
Explorator share of gold sold (equivalent ounces): 283
Explorator attributable revenue from gold sales: US$291,000
3rd Quarter ended 30 September 2018
Explorator share of gold produced (equivalent ounces): 453
Explorator share of gold sold (equivalent ounces): 251
Explorator attributable revenue from gold sales: US$242,000
Also interesting, that for the most part we've now surpassed CB's original figures:
You’re making my point for me by showing my old calcs. They were wrong, but that was mainly because I used the assumptions and many figures given by CB at the time, as many did. My 10% troy ounce error, was blown out the water when compared to CB’s inaccurate forward guidance.
Very revealing that you focus on my 10% error (and indeed other posters ‘errors’) and ignore the much more significant and inaccurate forward guidance CB gave at the time (grades / tph / etc). That proves you can’t rely on CB’s forward guidance as being accurate – as you seem to keep doing.
With respect JDAU, your posts are turning into a non-sequitur emotional rant and not a sensible mature discussion. A case, maybe, of ‘me thinks he doth protest too much’?
You’re just spamming-up the board now and I think it best we leave it there. Not just for the benefit of other BB members, but moreover, for your mental health !
Good luck with your investment here, I hope it does very well :)
Just for you Andrew as you know how much I enjoy my referencing of past opinions, I mean facts, I mean... hell I'm not even sure anymore.
Andrew4444 28 Mar 2018 15:57:
"...200tph x 20hrs x 25days = 100,000tpm x 0.5g/pt = 50,000g/pm = (1764oz) = $2,310,840"
Jdau 29 Mar 2018 09:41
"Andrew, I was reading your figures from yesterday, i’d suggest you revise them using:
31.1g = Ounce (Troy ounce)
I’ve mentioned it multiple time’s on this bb - calculations will never be accurate (even as estimations) when the wrong g / oz figure is being used.
Hope you don’t think I’m being a pain as I wholly respect that you’re just trying to do some cig packet calcs, but thought you’d want to know."
Andrew4444 29 Mar 2018 13:08
..."I was aware that there was a bit of a difference between Troy oz but as there were many other variables in my calcs I didn't think it was that significant."..
3.1g difference per oz, I'd say that was pretty significant when using it as a figure in revenue calculations, you were out by 10% and subsequently misrepresenting the facts.
Hilariously (to me anyway) that's substantially more of a difference in terms of % than we have all been arguing about today in terms of calculations.. though maybe that's just 'my kind of comedy'.
Re the above though, notice how I was completely polite with my explanation.
What can I say, maybe I'm a bit fed up, perhaps the years of having moronic posters chastising me for demanding a bit of accuracy and quoting RNS's has soured me into not having quite so much patience with my explanations anymore.
... or maybe I'm just a zealot who's obsessive and condescending.. I suppose it's up to the readers of this bb to decide for themselves who does their best to post informative, useful information and who, on the other hand, posts conjecture disguised as fact. Answers on a postcard.
Ps. Andrew4444 “There is no data or science to know how things will progress here” - something along the lines of a DFS would beg to differ.
For Colin’s sake, why do I even bother...
Just for reference, as you seem unable to determine fact from opinion...
Me explaining to you how many grams are in a Troy ounce so you weren’t using the 28g figure you might use when cooking wasn’t “my opinion”, it was me posting a factual piece of information to help you because you were incorrect and misleading any potential readers of your post.
Close to the truth? Your post barely even made sense, you just rambled on trying to discredit me by clumsily comparing me to a religious zealot for being able to articulate information about the company and source where I get my information from.
So you’re correct about one thing, I didn’t find it that funny.
Nb. If explaining to someone they’re wrong and showing them why a mistake was made whilst giving them the correct information on a platter makes me condescending then ok, I won’t argue with your definition of condescending. I mean, it’s wrong, but I won’t go as far as linking you to a dictionary definition, I’ll let you dyor on that one.
Quite a prickly response to what was, as I said, just a bit of a tease.
Maybe it was a bit too close to the truth for you to find it funny?
There is no data or science to know how things will progress here. You keep saying that you have to correct many posters workings, statements and explain things to people. But you are mainly just giving your opinion, which may or not be correct. But not more or less valid than anyone else's.
With respect JDAU, you do come over as a tad condescending at times.
Very funny Andrew, except in your “hilarious” analogy I’m “blindly relying” on Data & Science rather than the faith element of religion, slight pitfall in your comparison, but don’t let that stop you.
You can mock me all you like for being extremely bullish on XTR and behind CB but the science speaks for itself (that’s why I happily quote it so regularly).
Just remember Andrew that after “all those years” of discussing Xtract with me that in the first instance of you turning up here, I had to correct your statements, workings etc. and explain things to you citing my sources so you understood them, you didn’t have a problem with me posting sources for you then...
I distinctly remember your figures being so off that I had to go through them and explain what a Troy ounce was to you for CB’s sake. ;)
We don’t always see eye to eye Andrew, but for the sake of keeping the peace, please don’t try to make me look stupid for posting the facts, you know as well as I do that I post in an academic style (i.e citing my sources) to give the readers the ability to look at what I’m writing about and see that I’m not just posting conjecture as “fact”.
“Don't give a monkeys mate...as you have no idea whether your views are correct either..”
Why do you think I source and reference most things I post?- it allows people to see where I’ve got my views from (if they are my “views” as opposed to me just making a factual statement) subsequently allowing a reader to verify what I’m saying as fact.. some might call a factual statement “correct”.
After many years here, I’ve realised discussing Xtract with JDAU is like talking about religion to a devout Christian. If you say to a Christian that you want proof to believe what they believe, they say
‘have you not read the bible? That’s the word of God . How much proof do you want !’
Just replace the words bible for RNS and God for CB :)
Sorry JDAU just teasing… I think. I know I’ll now burn in hell for 1000yrs. That said, if that’s CB timescales it will probably be 2000 yrs! Good timing though, I’ll be out Just in time to see CB to restore shareholder value.
I'm sure Colin would have beat his own drum if he'd fought off a mass of competitors..thus assumption there weren't any
Don't give a monkeys mate...as you have no idea whether your views are correct either..and I asked to be corrected if I was wrong of my reading of a document.
You're talking from a position of absolutely no inside knowledge on the deal, as someone without the 40 or so years experience in the industry CB has, and as a person who I judge to have questionable business acumen, as I feel is demonstrated by your posts.
On top of that you've already clearly demonstrated a lack of understanding of the deal as was shown when I had to explain your (quite frankly basic) error in understanding of the RNS yesterday after you got all up in arms about something you felt was the case that wasn't even remotely accurate.
In the spirit of being polite, please forgive me If I don't give your opinion too much kudos...
Gixxer- in the spirit of helping you out, I'll paraphrase.
Pandemic = Distressed companies (either actually distressed or just panicking) = generally speaking companies taking less risks, i.e. acquisitions
This creates a good opportunity as a company looking to acquire assets to buy with a long term view as not many are taking on risk and prices (due to demand/supply) will subsequently be lower. XTR are in a position to take the risk as CB see's earnings as nailed on. Importantly CB sees the risk/reward of this acquisition and its potential as considerably favouring the reward side.
In due course: Pandemic over/under control = companies with assets will be less panicked/distressed (so less likely to sell / charge higher price because they'll take the risk of sitting on the asset) - companies looking to acquire assets will take risk back on, look back into acquisitions and subsequently we might of ended up either losing out on the project or having to pay much more for it.
So..there were multi bidders.no. I doubt we would have lost it..my view Bird couldn't wait..any ass can prolong a deal especially in the current situation in the world and the other party very little cash,if bird had said we fought off stiff competition to land this I would back off but he didn't there was no competition for the asset, plus we're giving the guy a job.well with 20% of the company there should be Tr1 s turning up so at least we wil know if our new man holds or sells
If you read the news releases properly/actually understood what's going on and perhaps listened to a podcast/interview or two you'd be able to formulate the answers to these mundane questions..
You're asking questions and speculating to each other about things that have been answered/reasoned out for you by the Executive Chairman.
Listen to the man at the top. Unlike some, he actually knows what he's talking about.
Looking at from another perspective LW. If it's such a world project why wasn't it snapped up by one of the 100's of other mining companies?
Bingo LW. Explained my views on exactly that yesterday.
Blueballsnall… I get your concerns but maybe in a couple of months that ozzy opportunity would not have been available any longer. On balance I think we will be more stable and that will reflect through to even greater SP than we thought possible from just waiting for Manica.
Exactly jdau..nail on held revenue equals higher share price less dilution
... another good interview from CB, re-iterates the opportunity provided by our new acquisition.
Interesting to hear CB mention (again) additional revenue streams coming in the short term (alluvials/free milling gold).
Thanks for the link / post Share_talk, much obliged.
Colin Bird, Executive Chairman of Xtract Resources plc (#XTR.L) Podcast talking with @ZaksTradersCafe about the Bushranger #Copper #Gold Project update, New South Wales, #Australia