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.
"Even Barrick... along with Rand Gold, if you look back in history, it's not the deals that have created the value, it's the continued ability to add ounces after the transaction".
Quote from Mark Bristow (Barrick CEO) in a recent Sarah Lowther interview
Applies equally to Copper etc as Gold no doubt...and that's a big tick box in my mind for Bushranger having significant on sale value for xtr.l
?????
Steve - If you check out the webinar released on the same day as the conceptual open pit study, then you see a visual interpretation of the ore body resource (which Zac called a yacht). That ore body visual is obviously based on the lower cut-off used in the study. So the cost of extracting all that ore is already accounted for.
If you then open up the last drill hole location map, and put it alongside the visual interpretation of the pit and ore body, you will see that (pretty much) all the new ore identified in the new JORC is going to also be located within the walls of that conceptual open pit i.e. more waste dirt converted to pay dirt and the cost of extraction already accounted for.
The extraction costs are therefore going to be pretty much the same. The cost difference will come from processing the 'new' ore instead of dumping it as waste. And processing costs are only a small fraction of overall opex - see link below to a presentation that shows how opex costs are broken down. I think you have massively overstated the increase in opex and that surely blows your assessment of the economics?
https://dxi97tvbmhbca.cloudfront.net/upload/user/image/GPoxleitner_OperatingCostEstimationForMiners_201620191128185443446.pdf
Jezzo... "He seems to think there is some kind of disconnect between the consequences of his actions and the real world.
There isn't."
The gambling world can do that I'm told.
I would like to know which supplier took £20k payment in 3p shares as well ,,, a company privvy to the data maybe? And lets not forget the balance of some oflast year's salaries being taken in shares by the senior team recently.
I get the impression Steve cares about no one but Steve or Steve's opinions.
He's lost money here and is salty about it, **** happens. I'm sure he made a statement on the roast boys about salty posters and I'm sure he said when he's lost money he just got over it and moved on...Seems he can't take heed to his own statements.
I get the impression, probably overly reading between the lines, that he feels the company/CB has wronged him somehow and he wants revenge. Did he have a chat with CB at the AGM? - Has CB told him some porkies that made him invest more?
For me I'm not underwater so still invested and I still see potential here. There's a lot already uncovered after P2 and I believe more drilling will only increase that potential. No, it's nowhere near what CB had led the market to believe but I still think it's sale worthy even where we are now, purely on the potential to uncover more.
Ideally, the high grade near surface volume will show viability but not enough to tempt AA, we could then either just sell or partner up to get a bit more $$ for P3.
>> You doubled the cost (identified in the economic modelling commissioned by Xtract) based on there being twice as much ore to process. That is a very big assumption and is simple wrong - processing the ore is only a small part of the overall opex associated with mining. The opex is a key figure for making an economic assessment and you made it up. Surely, as a professional analyst, you know this is a fatal flaw in your assessment?
Firstly, thanks for discussing numbers.
I based the double opex on it on digging up twice as much ore and processing it, not just processing it. The ore amount is from the RNS. However, you could argue that the pit size isn't necessarily twice as large to contain twice as much ore - there might be less 'dead rock'. We will only see that from the final model. The point from my doc was that I made all my assumptions very clear and the rationale behind them - I wasn't just inventing numbers with no reasoning behind them. I was happy to discuss those numbers, as I am now, but what happened was that people who agreed with them sold and people who disagreed stayed. So the current forum is the result of natural selection in favour of people who disagree with me - no surprise therefore at the personal attacks on my posts (although not in this case).
However, the main point of the doc wasn't really the model. I think I confused the issue by showing the model calculations. The main point was that the new JORC was really just the old JORC at a much lower cut-off and that was why I sold. If you compare at the same cut-off (by using the numbers from the model last year), there isn't much difference. Even the iceberg agreed in his blog that the new JORC was mainly created by converted the old resource model.
Theiceberg also pointed out that there might be ore in an updated resource model that didn't make it into the JORC (like the old resource model became the new JORC). I am sceptical because the main reason the old resource model became the new JORC was by lowering the cut-off from 0.3% to 0.1%. That trick won't work twice and low grade ore at distance from the original JORC will need a much bigger pit, which in itself requires more opex. However we won't know for sure until we see the updated model. If XTR publish new numbers that contradict my conclusions from their previous numbers, then I will reconsider.
As to the poster who keeps blaming me for his losses, the share price has dropped from 7p to less than 2p in recent months. When I made my post, it was already less than 2.5p. Some of the people who sold after that point may have made that decision after deciding they agreed with my numbers. However, it seems you are assuming that everyone who sold after that point was a scared idiot with no mind of their own who only sold because I posted (and presumably did not buy prior to that point based on positive posts). That doesn't really seem fair to other well-researched posters who also sold at the same time as
Lets also not forget that Colin, the team and creditors all took share options at a higher price recently (Colin also purchased a number of shares at over 5p last year) and that a significant shareholder has increased his holders by another 6m shares in the last few weeks... clearly this would all happen if management knew it was uneconomical already.
It is one thing being down on book value. There will be those whose stops were hit, at a significant loss. It is very hard to buy back in in that situation, psychologically, or financially. There will be others who are nervous, maybe less sure of their investment than others, or simply uninformed, who will have bailed at the sight of seemingly but slickly presented negative information from a seemingly respected poster (i.e. member of the public).
Poor fella if his feelings are hurt, the XTR part of my portfolio is down about £7k since his revelations.
Others will down substantially more.
He seems to think there is some kind of disconnect between the consequences of his actions and the real world.
There isn't.
Steve - Jeremy and Quinton are not experts in pit design and mine economics, which is why the data has been passed on to those that are, in order to independently 'determine the economics' using state of the art technology. Even with access to all the data, being qualified geologists, successful exploration professionals with decades of experience, they still need to bring in specialists with the right tools to do the job. For someone complaining about personally attacks, you don't seem to have a great deal of respect for other professions or the integrity of the Xtract Team in Australia!
And it has not all been personal attacks either. I have twice asked you about the opex cost you used in your economic assessment. You doubled the cost (identified in the economic modelling commissioned by Xtract) based on there being twice as much ore to process. That is a very big assumption and is simple wrong - processing the ore is only a small part of the overall opex associated with mining. The opex is a key figure for making an economic assessment and you made it up. Surely, as a professional analyst, you know this is a fatal flaw in your assessment?
I think he is the same person as Ted - wouldnt need to research the rebuttals if you already knew what they were. Clearly trying to get a cheaper buy in price.
Jezzo
Without trying to sound pompous, I'm genuinely disappointed in him. As he seemed a decent bloke and good poster, I gave him the benefit of the doubt for sometime .
It's clear he is trying to spook people and his flawed arguments now expose that. Or maybe justify his decision to sell to himself?
He is also the only person I have on filter !
>> "Yes, completely agree. Its hard to find a scenario where CB is highlighting the release of MREs, creation of models and a decision to mine (while also holding off on more drilling) if the 'mine' wasn't economic - especially as there is income available to do drilling where necessary"
Yes, I did say that on Oct 16th and I believed it at the time. Since then, we have had significant new data and I changed my view based on that new information. Plainly, many other people did too.
Its also plainly the case that all responses to my posts are attacks on the messenger, with very little focus on the message. When I responded to Ted for example, I researched the mines he mentioned and posted a factual rebuttal. Most of my posts are based on direct quotes from RNS. You might not like the quotes, or what they imply, but that doesn't make them incorrect.
When people attack me personally (and note I do not attack anyone personally), I have to admit it makes me more inclined to dig deeper into the RNS. I didn't suddenly stop being analytical, but I am obviously stating things you don't like with so you assume any analysis must be wrong. I see this all the time, not just on here.
If you want to stop me posting, just use facts to counter what I saying.
It is also worth remembering that the Racecourse modelling we are waiting on is simple a stepping stone to the negotiation table and will never actually be used by any new owner - whoever takes this on will want to sink another 200-300 drill holes before decided where to start and finalising the pit/site design (I still think Ascot will prove to be the daddy in this system). We just need to prove a profitable project with massive upside in order to declare a 'decision to mine' and take this to AA as the first step in the selling process.
One last point. We know the first economical model showed that Racecourse would pretty much breakeven based on the the inherited JORC ore resource. Since then, XTR drilling data have converted what was previously classified as waste dirt (within the boundaries of the first pit design and coming out anyway), into significantly more pay dirt. So, keeping things really simple (given we don't have the data, knowledge, experience or technology to make anything resembling a proper economic assessment), do we think this is likely to have improved or worsened the economics?
I only have one fkcwit filtered on this board so I know to whom you refer Andrew4444.
The man has no shame, no idea of morals and I'm pretty sure there must be a hidden agenda with him, as his about turn followed by incessant follow ups despite costing shareholders many thousands of pounds is extraordinary.
A very strange chap indeed.
"4. Jeremy Reid / Quinton Hills decided it probably wasn't economic given the drilling results, but XTR hasn't passed on that information yet."
As the intelligent person you are, you know there's no logic in that. The findings will have to come out through the independent report so passing it on for economic report just delays the bad news. But I think you know what you are saying isnt credible and are now deliberately trying to spook people - as you said on 16 Oct...
"Yes, completely agree. Its hard to find a scenario where CB is highlighting the release of MREs, creation of models and a decision to mine (while also holding off on more drilling) if the 'mine' wasn't economic - especially as there is income available to do drilling where necessary"
You are now clearly trolling the board. Despite what you claim is your motivation.
I have to say I'm genuinely surprised and disappointed in you. I thought you were better than that.
You were a good poster and agreed with a lot of what you said. You have now shown yourself to be nothing more than a more sophisticated version of Pops and others who repeatedly came back and trolled the board.
Now Filtered
(you would have been the last person I thought I would be doing that to a month ago !)
The OP asked for the thoughts of the better informed on here. One of those replies this morning does not qualify.
4. Jeremy Reid / Quinton Hills decided it probably wasn't economic given the drilling results, but XTR hasn't passed on that information yet.
Note the last RNS stated "· Following completion of the Ascot Prospect Mineral Resource, the open pit mining study for the Bushranger Project will be updated to determine the economics of a 25Mtpa open pit mining operation, utilising the Mineral Resources at both the Racecourse and Ascot prospects".
Note: "to determine the economics"
Also Colin stated in the recent interview that XTR were waiting on a 3rd party assessment to determine if it was economic. He also said recently (in the AGM I think) that the people in Australia wanted to keep drilling.
In other words, everyone still invested here seems to assume it is economic (understandable as otherwise you would have sold), but XTR haven't actually said that. At least, not in recent months. There has been a noticeable change in language.
"I just can’t see this team sending off the data to a 3rd party for an economic model only to be told it doesn’t work? I think the market has got this wrong."
Agreed. I made this point before.
Three conclusions:
1.Either Jeremy Reid / Quinton Hills and their team are so incompetent that they couldn’t do what Steve did or may be they couldn’t be bothered as they wanted to watch the football.
2. They did what Steve did and came to the same conclusion, but thought, “what the hell” let us get the economic model out to show we need POC at $11K+ for it to be economic. Surely, the market wont have a problem with that?
3. They did their inhouse calcs and decided it was economic and at broadly current POC, so could take it to the next level for independent economic modelling. Where the economic model would give actual precise details, options and best way to improve efficiency, refine, and fine tune results.
It would be good to hear the thoughts on this topic from the better informed on here as I believe it’s key to the value of the whole thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIwR_0S7SEJust reminding myself why I invested and looking back at this presentation from a year ago. When comparing the original open pit with the new resource it looks to me they were successful in converting waste rock into ore especially around the SW and north. This was one of their objectives of phase 2 drilling. I just can’t see this team sending off the data to a 3rd party for an economic model only to be told it doesn’t work? I think the market has got this wrong.
JS I am aware of the results from no man’s land which were important for defining the limits. I’m not saying it needs to be drilled further. When have I said that? I apologise if you have misunderstood me somewhere.
The question now is, why is there now a rhetoric toward this particular area between Ascot and RC in light of the drilling result summary given previously. Which incidentally, doesn’t state it is ‘not’ of economic grade but ‘considered’ to be below viable mining grade. There is an apparent difference and until the data is modelled by the independent consultants they cannot be certain either way as I, and I’m sure many others understand it.
subscription needed for that!
New tech to lower costs of rock breaking.
https://www.ft.com/content/bdedd7de-94fe-409b-adf3-43c6e201c86f