We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
What would be the cost of that initial $1Billion over the 25 years ? Any money people know ?
Glad you are seeing the positive side of the bigger picture lucky.
Definitely at the business end now with the optimisation of what what has been circled by phase 2. With a PFS in sight the main focus now is concentrating solely on the ‘initial’ mining phase that will support the DtM with a positive economic evaluation. Hence why the talk now is centred around an 11-14 year ‘initial’ production run.
Even taking into account recovery losses from the ore sorting and production process there is a decent margin still.
Xtract only have to show there is reasonable justification starting with economic viability for a buyer to take the project on toward the next stages.
There are many hurdles ahead for the acquirer and this study and the next are just hurdles this company has to get over.
Not to mention, this is a district play. Possibly another cadia. Good luck all.
The old opex was approximately US $300m P/A
If they can reduce it to say US $200m P/A
That's US $5 Billion over 25 years.
Add in the capex at say US $750M or even the original US $1 Billion.
Even at the Conservative 8k per tonne, over $4.4 Billion left! That's US $175 million P/A revenue.
So basically, you can't get a pre feasibility on an inferred resource. This is why we have some indicated and will drill more to change the high grade top, into indicated. Why? Because you can't say to AA your building a mine, without a pre feasibility study. We need a sufficient pre feasibility study to declare decision to mine and break away from AA or they take it.
Regarding there not being Capex added to the economics so far, this is irrelevant as they do not know what the new Capex is, so why tell us now and then change it. I know Steve is saying this is terrible and they are doing it because otherwise it is not economical.....blah blah. That's a load of rubbish as the original capex was only $1 Billion us dollars. With a reduction of capex from the concentration being added, it may drop to $750M.
The opex may reduce by 65% with the concentration process.
The current 1.3 MT is worth $10.4 Billion at a very Conservative $8k per tonne.
$13 Billion at $10k
Indicated Mineral Resource
An Indicated Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity, grade or quality,
densities, shape and physical characteristics are estimated with sufficient confidence to allow the
application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning and evaluation of the
economic viability of the deposit.
Geological evidence is derived from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing
and is sufficient to assume geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation.
An Indicated Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to a Measured
Mineral Resource and may only be converted to a Probable Mineral Reserve.
Mineralization may be classified as an Indicated Mineral Resource by the Qualified Person when the nature,
quality, quantity and distribution of data are such as to allow confident interpretation of the geological
framework and to reasonably assume the continuity of mineralization. The Qualified Person must recognize
the importance of the Indicated Mineral Resource category to the advancement of the feasibility of the project.
An Indicated Mineral Resource estimate is of sufficient quality to support a Pre-Feasibility Study which can
serve as the basis for major development decisions.
developed mines. Inferred Mineral Resources can only be used in economic studies as provided under NI 43-
101.
There may be circumstances, where appropriate sampling, testing, and other measurements are sufficient to
demonstrate data integrity, geological and grade/quality continuity of a measured or Indicated Mineral
Resource, however, quality assurance and quality control, or other information may not meet all industry
norms for the disclosure of an indicated or Measured Mineral Resource. Under these circumstances, it may be
reasonable for the Qualified Person to report an Inferred Mineral Resource if the Qualified Person has taken
steps to verify the information meets the requirements of an Inferred Mineral Resource
Inferred Mineral Resource
An Inferred Mineral Resource is that part of a Mineral Resource for which quantity and grade or
quality are estimated on the basis of limited geological evidence and sampling. Geological evidence is
sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade or quality continuity.
An Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated
Mineral Resource and must not be converted to a Mineral Reserve. It is reasonably expected that the
majority of Inferred Mineral Resources could be upgraded to Indicated Mineral Resources with
continued exploration.
An Inferred Mineral Resource is based on limited information and sampling gathered through appropriate
sampling techniques from locations such as outcrops, trenches, pits, workings and drill holes. Inferred Mineral
Resources must not be included in the economic analysis, production schedules, or estimated mine life in
publicly disclosed pre- feasibility or feasibility studies, or in the life of mine plans and cash flow models of
e-Feasibility Study (Preliminary Feasibility Study)
The CIM Definition Standards requires the completion of a Pre-Feasibility Study as the minimum prerequisite
for the conversion of Mineral Resources to Mineral Reserves.
A Pre-Feasibility Study is a comprehensive study of a range of options for the technical and economic
viability of a mineral project that has advanced to a stage where a preferred mining method, in the case
of underground mining, or the pit configuration, in the case of an open pit, is established and an
effective method of mineral processing is determined. It includes a financial analysis based on
reasonable assumptions on the Modifying Factors and the evaluation of any other relevant factors which
are sufficient for a Qualified Person, acting reasonably, to determine if all or part of the Mineral
Resource may be converted to a Mineral Reserve at the time of reporting. A Pre-Feasibility Study is at a
lower confidence level than a Feasibility Study
Colin several times in interviews stated that he was not worried about the grades. Well he damn well should have been.
Why would a very wealthy octogenarian worry about ANYTHING. Other than staying alive long enough to spend it.
Really good summary. No need to apologise
Has anyone noticed this ?
https://twitter.com/colinbirdmining?s=11&t=zSwmCD1Bni8mqj4XbBZFrQ
Hi Dani if for example the whole 225mt that is ore and waste rock all together, it is not just all grade ore, contains an average grade of 0.33%CuEq and is all workable that obviously equates to about 742,500tonnes of potentially recoverable contained copper eq. Ore sorting, generally separates the waste rock that has no economic benefit, say by 50% but about 13% of the good grade ore is lost n the process.
So the same 742,500 tonne has lost 13% of that total but all the remaining is concentrated into what now becomes 112.5m tonnes of the more economic ore. Hence increasing the mineable ‘average’ grade contained after. There is also still a further loss at processing recovery of 10-15% that was determined by the metallurgical testing. Neither of these are to be confused with ore grade control either.
These losses are no doubt outweighed by the increased economic potential of a subsequent smaller plant and lower running costs
Copy paste AA link into browser and replace the asterix with ar se making coar se
They would have retrieved representative examples from stored core from previously drilled holes from phase 2.
Sorry if above is too dumbed down, easiest way to explain.
Colin several times in interviews stated that he was not worried about the grades. Well he damn well should have been.
As an example, Taseko Mines (Market cap of $645m) are supposedly "stuck" with a mine that grades 706 million tons grading 0.25% copper.
https://www.tasekomines.com/investors/news-releases/taseko-announces-a-40-increase-in-gibraltar-proven-and-probable-reserves
Ok granted XTR does not have anywhere near the resource size, but point being, one should not focus on grade alone as it's clear, in and around 0.25 is viable if in decent size.
The debate here being, is the size of the resource enough to attract a commercial deal and reward shareholders.
The sudden, previously never mentioned, move to consider "pre-concentration" mining to me
indicates a concern that in it's current offering, they would not have a queue of buyers banging on the door imemdiately. Hence they are looking at ways to make the package more appealing to potential buyers.
The pre-concentration move is necessary because to 2 tons never materialised and now overall economics needs to be improved upon.
I'm not holding currently but keeping tabs as previoulsy held (too long) before the Bird Fireworks, turned into just a few sparklers. There could still be good value here.
Will keep a watch but now they are talking about drilling, the threat of another placing is possible.
Just my opinion
ODR
Ma,
Sorry to interject but my take on the info I had read over the last day or two is that the concentrator will enhance the garade. They use sensors (probably conduction or magnetism) to detect when the grades passing through the intial sorting process to reject the very low grade material. This is why some Cu will be rejected. AA are using this technology. The one reason AA may reject BR is that the total amount of Cu is too small although grades may also be important. But, more drilling is to be done so that may not be an issue in the fullness of time.
The current analysis, in my understanding of the situation, is that existing drill cores are to be tested to see how applicable the sensors are at sorting the ore.
The forthcoming drilling is, in my mind very valuable but the question of how it is to be financed is as yet unannounced. Hopefully it will be via African income.
Hope this helps.
My view is that certainty of delivery will be important. (safe jurisdiction, mining friendly, power, open cast mine etc)
So I could imagine Tesla or another car maker getting involved to secure 50,000 plus tonnes of copper a year for 10, or perhaps 20-50 years. Either by way of buy in, offtake agreement, underwriting project costs or some other mechanism.
That would certainly change the outlook.
Looks like a hold to me.
I just rounded up my holding, 972,235.
In for a penny lol
Colin, Joel and another large holder all bought or received shares. They are the insiders, I'll follow them rather than listen to others without the data.
howezap - You may be right about the area between RC and Ascot not being economical to mine but I still remember asking myself why CB kept citing it as a possibility even after the assays were in.
Bottom draw for now. See you in a year or on next news!
If it goes under 1p (and i'm sure it will) i will buy in again for a profit
With fuel costs , increased labour and regulations ,no way these grades are economical at the moment .
Hence the SP... Further exploration to encounter better grades is the only option or its dead in the water.
The other £500k per month alluvial gold income... is a pipe dream , has been for the last 2 yrs.
Sub 1p inevitable now
Hi Stevem
>>>considered to be below viable mining grade." Would the new technology change that?
Had considered that potential myself Steve to reduce cut off grade as result of ore sorting, but would doing that then start to erode any of the economic benefits achieved in the first place. So I’m not so sure.
Also I would say the potential to increase the chance of joining up Ascot is more likely to be dictated by strip ratio tolerances that CB mentioned at some point previously.
“In surface mining, the strip ratio is the amount of waste rock that must be removed to release a given ore quantity. “
As pre concentrator ore sorting increases average head grade and reduces waste ore being processed, is there a correlation to potentially support a higher strip ratio?
One to get your head around but in my opinion the answer is no in that respect
This will get sold no doubt but I believe as others have mentioned this could be 1 ,2 or 3 years away as they really need the copper price to spike well above 11000 which will happen but not while countries are exsperienceing down turns and even going into recessions but it’s all about time now and how long do investors want to wait personally I have just sold my last xtr stake and put it in AFP which I believe could be the big winner here first .
In podcast I think can remember CB saying that the highest price they are using for financial model, is $11000 per tn.
Whether he is stalling or not (I think he probably is waiting for FB income) it is highly likely that copper price will rise to a level that will ensure this is economic - assuming it isnt already.
The problem for many is that time scale is now far too long to wait so they have left. And its nothing like the timescale or size CB implied a year ago so all trust, for many, has gone.
I expect this to all come good , eventually, but that may now take 12 to 18 months before we get a buy-out. It may be a case of sitting and waiting until copper price does what many expect it to do....whenever that is !