Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video 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.
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
howezap - why is this, taken from an RNS in July, still not good enough for you? So you think they should just keep spending money by putting holes in this area? You keep going on about how this area hasn't been explored effectively, what more do you think they should do?
-- Assay results for holes drilled between the Racecourse and Ascot deposits have defined the southern limit of the Racecourse Mineral Resource and the northern margin of Ascot
-- Hole BRDD-22-042 cut a lengthy interval of low-grade copper mineralisation to the south of the Racecourse deposit which is considered to be below viable mining grade and will thus be valuable in defining the southern limit of the conceptual open pit
Precisely G600. Even if barely marginal, it would make sense to process this, as it would cost more to put in the two faces opposite each other in separate pits. As Andrew says, the modelling of the pit - resulting in what’s economic and what isn’t - is much more complex than simply multiplying the grades x tonnage. We will have to wait and see. I personally don’t think all is lost yet.
Thanks for your thoughts guys/girls.
If CB was planning to mine the area between the two deposits then it does suggest that he thinks the low grades there are of some value. I realise he may not have had all of the grade information at that time but I suspect the geos would be able to make a rough estimates from some in-house tests.
JS how is that rubbish, until it is explored effectively, how are they going to know? It is not known yet if , or at what Cu price it would be economical.
The "not being economic" conclusion re the gap between RC and Ascot is obviously dependent on costs as well as grade. It could be that once the mine is built and paid for from higher grade Cu near surface, we have zero Capex and only opex left for extraction and processing of "the gap" ore .
There still could be some profit in mining "the gap" if that was the case. Maybe not a lot of profit, but more than not processing it??
Not saying that will be the case but its a possibility if you have zero capex in that assessment.
This discussion is very relevant when considering the response to the RC MRE and the pronouncements from amateur mining experts (we've all read the posts) commenting on bald % figures and suggested cut off rates.
A complex system is clearly far more nuanced than someone's weekend calculations can do justice to.
Good point BM, would it be more efficient to go through that 'uneconomic' region between RC/AC even if you just break even?
That region could have the plant close by and be the the entry/exit slope for plant? Left AC - Right BR
Rubbish from howezap again. While there is potential for Ascot (although this looks significantly less than previously thought given the poor follow up drill results), the drilling between the two prospects has already proven that the area between is not mineralised enough for it to be economical.
LW, it may be the case that even with low grades in between RC and Ascot, digging a single pit would be more productive than having 2 separate pits, for the reasons I have given below. So grades that weren’t economic if in one of the standalone pits, may become economic if they are dug out as part of a single pit. Because you’d then not have two unproductive facings on either side of the area in between the 2 stand-alone pits. Logically this would be so, but I’d guess it’s all down to the grades in between RC and Ascot, when it comes to pit design. I wonder then if the Ascot MRE will be issued as a standalone MRE - in which case maybe 100-200kt of cu eq, or whether this MRE will now be issued as an extension to RC, with the previously uneconomic area in between now becoming economic. In which case the MRE could be considerably larger.