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.
Steve - They are consistently inconsistent.
One other clue to it being an inaccuracy is that the phase 1 and 2 drilling went into a lot of virgin ground and extended the footprint of the original ore body. I simply cannot see how those extensions only added 15% more copper.
Steve, maybe it was the independent consultants that chose to do that?
There is always a bigger fish, another drill campaign may well find another porphyry, more copper infill, more value etc.
The choices open to XTR is to either complete a phase 3 drilling campaign in the hope of increasing the resource significantly or sell to a bigger fish who can do what we did but on a larger scale and realise value that way.
A sale is my preference, Bushranger will not be worth nothing. It will have a value, but that value will be subject to the POC
Steve - last comment on this as I think I am just annoying people by continuing the debate. Ultimately, I can only go off what was written in the RNS by XTR. One clearly states a Cu cut-off and the other states CuEq. I've gone back and looked at other RNS and the only place I can a mention of a CuEq cut-off is in the latest RNS. It is possible that XTR are simply inconsistent in their reporting.
Steve - I still think it is just another inaccuracy.
If you have a cut-off for copper alone, then you will end up classifying good ore (that has low amounts of copper but high amounts of gold, silver etc) as waste. And there is no other cut-off grade mentioned for other metals.
I've had to filter Steve4077.
Like a stuck record.
Some people don't know when enough is enough.
>> Steve - Surely the cut-off in the conceptual open pit study is Cu Eq even if it does say Cu? For example, if there was 0.9% Cu but 0.25% Cu Eq, they wouldn't classify it as waste dirt to be dumped.
Copper equivalent seems to be used in three ways.
1) For the total tonnage, such as the new 1.1mt CuEq JORC, which has 922k tons copper and the other 180k tons in gold value converted to copper value.
2) For a combined grade. Same as above - the 0.22% is CuEq grade, which includes 0.18% copper with the other 0.04% coming from gold converted to copper.
3) For the cut-off. The 0.1% CuEq cut-off is for ore that contains a 'combined grade' of at least 0.1%. Only part of that, I estimate roughly 0.08%, is copper and the rest of gold converted to copper grade.
If we take the conceptual study as an example, that used 0.15% Cu cut-off - ore that contained at least 0.15% copper, plus some gold on top - so the CuEq cut-off for that model was higher.
So a 0.15% CuEq cut-off will include some ore that would not be included in a 0.15% Cu cut-off. I'm not saying that one is right and the other is wrong - just that they are not directly comparable.
Should read... 0.09% Cu but 0.25% Cu Eq
Steve - Surely the cut-off in the conceptual open pit study is Cu Eq even if it does say Cu? For example, if there was 0.9% Cu but 0.25% Cu Eq, they wouldn't classify it as waste dirt to be dumped.
It's not my net worth in question. What is CBs worth as CEO is definitely questionable. Don't make it personal , I will eat humble pie if I am wrong. Everyone knows how you build multi million company on AIM and CB is master of that.
@theiceberg. Thanks for the blog. Two quick comments.
1) The JORC comparison you posted was from the doc. However, yesterday I noticed the new JORC RNS used 0.15% CuEq cut-off, whereas the old one used 0.15% Cu, so my comparison was flawed. Given that the gold/silver accounts for almost twenty percent of the 'equivalent grade', a fairer comparison would be to the new 0.20% CuEq Cut-off, which is about 0.16% copper. That changes the comparison from 50% extra copper (as noted in your blog) to less than 15%.
2) You quoted a capex number for another mine at $800m and thought BR was somewhere between $500m and $1500m . I just wanted to point out the study was in AUD, not USD
Cela, they won't fight over it. I didn't say a major won't buy it!!! They all know copper will be in shirt supply. Anyone with an economical copper deposit will be in the eyes of the majors.
Even if they just buy them to mine in the future when copper prices are $7/$8/$9 per lb.
It's better for any major to increase their inventory of projects.
It's better to have a borderline economical deposit with potential around it, than to have a mining license on a piece of ground with no drilling on it!!
It's worth more than 17m
So it’s very underwhelming then if you don’t believe majors with be clambering for it , it’s all very disappointing I was hopeful of retirement of this but it’s not looking like that now .
I think 4.5lb is a push at the moment for use in a PFS. I think $4 is more current.
I do also see $5 per lb copper price next year if China removes lockdowns.
To be clear, 1 penny/cent profit means its economical to mine. What we need the new financial study to say is economical to mine at $4.5LB copper with a profit of 25% over the life of mine. Even at this, it is worth something but its not going to have majors fighting over it.
LETS WAIT AND SEE!
Unmoved
"It has been said many times, CB is stretched too thin over many companies and it shows. No communication strategy, just winging it. Every time there is an RNS or interview, the SP takes a hit!"
You may have noticed RNSs from 2 other Bird companies today, KEN & GLR . Largely positive news albeit most of the content could have almost been cut and pasted from other previous Bird company RNSs.
Yet the SPs remain unmived. Is the market starting to tire of the endless positive spin?
We already know it will be economical to mine.
It's at what price and how much profit it will make.
I looked into it a bit and 15% net profit over the mine life is what they class as a minimum.
Australia tax is 30% on mining profits.
So on a mine they want 22% profit minimum pre tax. So on a 8 billion dollar life of mine capex and opex. 2.5billion pre tax profit would be minimum.
I think bushranger will meet that.
Price to sell it? Not a clue. But I would be happy at 60/70/80 million.
Someone buying in blocks of 250000 now and looking really oversold
It has been said many times, CB is stretched too thin over many companies and it shows. No communication strategy, just winging it. Every time there is an RNS or interview, the SP takes a hit!
Hopefully the resource in the ground will have the final word.
How do you conclude that? Steve said he didn't think the mine would be economical and iceberg said it probably is?!?
Steve's maths was all good but the data that feed into it was based on a lot of assumptions. And we all know what assumptions are the mother of!
For me, the most obvious assumption error was doubling the opex because the volume of ore had doubled. Digging up and processing the ore is just one cost. If you go back to the conceptual open pit study, that showed a strip ratio of 4.37 which means for every tonne of ore you take out of the pit for processing, there are 4.37 tonnes of waste dirt to dump. The cost of that is significant and ignored. Plus, the new JORC will have improved the strip ratio by turning what was previously considered waste dirt within the pit into pay dirt (ore), with the cost of extraction already accounted for.
As iceberg said... too many variables to make a solid call on whether a mine will be viable. But there is certainly enough ore for Bushranger to command a good price if mine viability is proven.
I'm seriously underwater with this now and I can't see it losing much more even if the mine isn't viable. I'll be hanging in here until the final whistle is blown on the Bushranger game.
Iceberg. Thanks for sharing.
Can’t believe this share has fallen to £16m market cap. I wish they never published the resource now and just cracked on with Phase 3. CB states this is a massive system - let’s just keep exploring unless we have a very sellable asset- that’s why I am a shareholder. Unless the model comes ups trumps I find this completely bizarre.
You think? You mean after all this drilling, you don't know?
Well I just Red your article and you say that on the face of it Steve’s figures are not fr off which would Insinuate that if you basically agree with his figures it not viable but now you say it probably is viable all depends on the jorc I agree