REMINDER: Our user survey closes on Friday, please submit your responses 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.
That's a shame as last year we thought this was a golden goose not a swan !
Big Blue Happy one
What colour swan ??!!
Doing all ok with me I think this will turn into a swan as it goes through 2023
cb.. hopefully somewhere warm drinking chilled champagne ??
Pinocchio >>> muddling the 2M Cu in resource with 'decision to mine' and trying to pretend that it was always one or the other.
It has actually ‘always’ been either option. Probably the more serious option with the 2mt being the preferred PR hook to get the necessary fundraise for phase 2. In the first team presentation webinar that came out prior to the initial conceptual mining study, Jeremy Reid clearly says, if that study shows that, “An open pit looks to be strongly economic, then the board of xtract decide to proceed into an open pit mine, that would then trigger 1 of those 2 options for Anglo.”
It states it as clear as night and day in the buy back agreement in the Bushranger presentation on the website too. As well as the simple fact that they commissioned the first conceptual mining study anyway, as there was a propensity for an open pit mine due to the shallow and inclined nature of the porphyry from the offset.
Most folk don’t believe what Colin says, why would they believe anything a stranger on a public board says? Even if that stranger was said to be a professional. Bottom line, there are no excuses for not doing your own basic research and understanding to draw one’s own conclusions. Let’s keep it factual Pinocchio. And btw you forgot to copy and paste in my winky face at the end of my obvious sarcastic quote ;-)
i wonder where we will be this time next year
I won’t say ‘you’re welcome’ Butlerman as I could have misread CB’s comments regarding a PFS and am wrong. Don’t believe I have, in which case it could well imply then that, some of the higher grade core may need to convert to indicated and part measured as this is what will be mined first and a PFS is intended for.
>>>………we can maximise the early cash flows by mining the higher grade 191Mt core to the deposit at rates up to 25Mpta.
· The Racecourse Mineral Resource contains 50Mt @ 0.25% CuEq which has been classified as Indicated in accordance with JORC (2012)
· A higher-grade core of the Racecourse mineralisation extends from near surface to relatively shallow depths and contains 191Mt (inferred) @ 0.33% CuEq, reported at a cut-off of 0.2% CuEq
* From RC resource estimate RNS
No more BS Colin, we need transparency in what’s ‘required,’ if xtract is to attract new investors and shake off the markets negative perception. And also stop amateurs drawing their own flawed conclusions from over researching when there is constant uncertainty ;-)
Thanks Howzap. I’m learning all the time!
Hi Butlerman it’s not likely to be the case that ‘no’ more drilling is required even if the PEA comes back very favourable. As per the requirement for the decision to mine, stated by CB, they will want to see a PFS, and mineral resource inputs required state clearly that it will need some of the resource at least to be measured. So some extra infill is a necessity in that respect.
A PEA or scoping study determines if a project has potential to be economically viability. A pre-feasibility study determines whether a probable mineral reserve ‘is’ economically viable and a feasibility study determines whether the reserve can be economically mined.
https://mining.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/img_59a7468ece12f.png
So is likely the PFS may be required for only the initial early mining phase to show recovery of CapEx.
That’s my understanding unless someone can advise otherwise.
My impression is that we will definitely do a bit more infill drilling as guided by the economic model. To get most "bangs for our bucks " rathe than more exploration drilling. Maybe another 10 drills in strategic areas where the model wants more definition or certainty.
I'm confident for a sale at some point in next 12 to 18 months and I still think 10 to 15p is likely rather than just possible.
Obviously POC will be a massive driver in that and IF POC takes off like some think by end of 2023 then we may be looking at low 20s but I think that is, realistically, the very optimistic case notwithstanding POC going into orbit at $15K+ within a year which seems very unlikely in that timescale.
Andrew, it’s anyones guess until the pit/economic model is produced. I’m hoping that RC and Ascot prove viable without any further drilling and Colin accepts an offer, with the buyer knowing that some more drilling will probably take it to over 2MT. So whilst I’d take 10p, I’m still hoping that BR is worth more than that to a major. The model can’t be that far away!
Butler
We wont be getting just 10p.
Remember what CB said re a 10p offer in 2021.....
"I'd tell 'em they could stick it "
Hmmm. I wonder what he really would do now if offered 10p.....
With my average now being 5p, I’d be very happy with 20p, Howezap. I’d even be happy with 10p!
They throw in the disclaimer at the beginning of each and every interview, “ Nothing in this podcast is intended as investment advise and the people in this podcast may hold positions in the stocks they talk about…..” They can all then, pretty much say what they want.
The jury is still out on wether the project is viable, but I’m sure ‘if’ and when BR is sold, wether that be in ‘23 or ‘24, that, will ultimately be CB’s saving grace, ‘nothing less.’ Even if it’s sold for less than individuals own expectations, would those individuals be too disappointed with only making, for example, 4 times their capital investment instead of maybe the many more multiples anticipated by them, from CB’s past rhetoric on quantity, and timescales too!
I would love to see a proper interview done by Matthew Gordon at crux investor!
CB would get destroyed if he said the same things to MG as he did in his other interviews !
Really, it should be stated that Roast/Zac 'interviews' are a 'Paid Promotion'
In addition, the roast boys do a lot of "editorial comment" in the interviews - much more so than zak does. They dont just give CB a platform to promote his companies they actively promote the company themselves through their own views and comments.
I found this more noticeable than when Zak does the "interviews " (sic) who seems to make only two comments :
at the start "hows things with Xtract Colin" and then at the end "thanks Colin and bye"
It reflects badly on them. Just so long as they get that when money is lost due to Colin over promising on their platform.
CB uses Zak and the Roast boys to promote his companies. As others have said, the roast boys are paid in shares and never question him on any failures. Its not an interview but a paid promotion.
It would seem somewhat more than just coincidence that out of nearly 1000 AIM companies the roast boys pick most of, or all of CB companies to recommend as a stock pick or regularly cover !
I wonder why? :)
>>I believe is in some way paid for. - They are paid in shares I believe.
Bear in mind the Roast podcasts are not wholly independent of the companies that they cover. It is part of the PR activities of XTR and I believe is in some way paid for. This accounts for the less than intensive grilling (sorry, roasting) that shareholders may feel would be appropriate sometimes.
Since they have more background information than most it will certainly send out a big message if they have felt it appropriate to not include XTR at around 2p considering they were more than happy to tip XTR at much higher SP only a few months ago.
AFP and Xtract amongst the 12 stocks last year. Already this year the picks so far, have included AFP again, and Galileo from the CB stable. Interested to see if the roast boys have lost any of their confidence and in their support for Xtract to include this year.
Still 6 more to go.
I'll/d not bother even looking into such rules Andrew, as - 'as a rule' - CB seems to take AiM rules as guidlines more than rules.
Happy NY All