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.
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 !
howezap - The new technology could however allow recovery at even lower cut-off grade, which could ultimately help increase the amount of copper that is recovered.
CB often speculated whether RC and Ascot joined-up but the assays from the drilling between the porphyry's was "considered to be below viable mining grade." Would the new technology change that? Who knows... they never provided a grade. But he did keep saying it even after they reported 'below viable' assay results.
Some people have also questioned why they have waited 3 months before deciding to test to see what difference the new technology would make in terms of recovery and costs - they undoubtedly were already aware of the technology. Some are speculating that it is because the project is not currently viable, which is obviously a possibility. But it is also a fact that we are still waiting on FB to reach full production and that income is needed to fund the additional drilling that will complete the modelling and update the JORC. Plus, the longer we wait, the more likely the price of copper will go up and improve the economics even further. So, is CB stalling? Clearly he is. But is it because he doesn't want to admit Bushranger isn't viable or because he is waiting for African revenue and for the price of copper to go up? You place your money and take your chances... for me it isn't worth cashing out now, so I'll hold in the hope it is the later scenario and that CB will eventually land this and turns me a profit.
GLA whatever your choices.
It won’t allow the word coa rse in the link that’s all
https://www.angloamerican.com/futuresmart/stories/our-industry/mining-explained/bulk-ore-sorting-and-co****-particle-recovery-leading-the-way-in-mineral-processing-innovation
Hi ma no it does not increase the JORC as the tech only increases the efficiency of the processing phase of that same material. It is used to drive down energy consumption per tonne of concentrate produced and reduce water and reagent consumption.
It is a reason why you often see higher head grades quoted well over the mineral resource av grade on current producing mines.
There are many different methods of ore sorting that are suitable for different ore type. That I do know.
Lastly that is rather subjective to answer, but, to illustrate the point that major mining companies ‘will’ be adopting these technologies. AA themselves are leading the way.
https://www.angloamerican.com/futuresmart/stories/our-industry/mining-explained/bulk-ore-sorting-and-co****-particle-recovery-leading-the-way-in-mineral-processing-innovation
A projects low carbon footprint which includes, from using renewable energy will trump projects for majors, that just have higher grades and are off the grid!
Fully get where your coming from 3cardbrag got sucked in myself but my own research has led me now to believe that it is quite normal timescales we are experiencing to prove up to a saleable state a large scale porphyry project. Worth pointing out though that 0.6%Cu is an average across all mineralisation types of deposits. The average for porphyries is stated as being 0.44%Cu in the ‘21 presentation. Being economically mined down to grades as low as 0.15%Cu. Blah blah yeah I know ;-)
One last point regarding pre-concentrate ore sorting if is of any consolation. After just some minimal research it is apparent that this technology has been used in many large, low grade mines of which has ‘made’ many projects economically viable and not just enhanced those that were already viable.
Having listened to the latest audioboom, I found it impossible to avoid comparing Birdie's cautious demeanour today with his previous constant hype about fantastic grades, 2MT in the bag, done deal with AA etc.
When did he bang on about pre-concentration during the drilling campaign? Let's face it, he's only talking about it now because, having miserably failed to hit 2MT and do a deal with AA, he needs to find some way to package BR up as an attractive proposition.
He keeps banging on about cash flow but when asked about viability he's vague and defensive.
He also mentioned that global mining grades are now much lower at an average 0.6% , but we are stuck at around 0.3% and even with pre-concentration, he struggles to convince that we would get much more than 0.45%.
Not a troll. Just someone who is angry with himself for getting sucked in by Birdie's over-optimistic hype.
I think another point that is important to consider, is that with Optimal recommending going down the ore sorting route, it would be pointless to go to the extra effort to work on Cap costs for a 20-25mtpa plant. When the updated study is finally released one would assume that the previous 16 scenarios would be deleted as new scenarios would supersede those as would be based around using modern ore sorting technology, would be illustrated, including, working on and then including the reduced capital costs that a smaller scale but more efficient operation would require.
It would simply be a waste of time and shareholders money money to have gone to the trouble when the costs would have had to have been evaluated all over again. So certainly, ‘not’ including Cap Ex because it is the only way to show it is economic!
That’s plainly wrong because they haven’t released it yet.
I just dont get what the point of that RNS and interview was as they told us nothing. trying to make something of the concentrate process which is neede3d anyway just came over as hiding something.
Howezap. Fair point made. Colin has spoken about doing the same at GLR and the Luansobe project. But the tie a ribbon on it and flog it plan now a distant memory. Many a disappointed shareholder.
Optimising the pit by means of pre ore sorting is something that is alluded to in the preliminary 71mt conceptual study to improve economic viability by “analysing lower production rates such as 12 or 15Mt per annum.” Simply, just to reduce throughput will certainly not improve economic viability without increasing head grade!
It’s something I assumed they would do anyway as par for the course, so didn’t think anything of it. So It’s no real surprise to take these necessary steps to maximise NPV, in a typical low grade high volume porphyry project. With more the reason to do so, to reduce the projects carbon footprint as social tolerances toward open pit mining are ever more demanding meaning major mining companies, not only for efficiency and profitability, but also have a responsibility to take these measures anyway in just obtaining the permissions needed to progress to development stage alone, as environmental legislation tightens.
The pre-concentration study shouldn’t take long to complete and not be that expensive as just four drill core samples have already gone for analysis which looks as though from the RNS that is all that is required. Once the mining study can then be updated to show its economic state, then there will come an optimisation phase of the drilling that is being planned, directed from initial work by Optimal on the mining study that is waiting to be updated with the pre-concentration study.
Overdone as usual but understandable if patience is running thin.
And the roast interview boys lapped it up lol
They took 3 months to come up with that statement of the obvious LittleWing !
"The 20Mtpa and 25Mtpa open pit options potentially generate significant operating cash margins dependent upon mining rate, copper price and cut-off grade"
Duh ?? really ??
Who'da thought it ?