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.
Buzzy lizzy, that's for processing ore. There is waste rock above to be blasted and removed.
It's not something we can really work out without all the data. You can speculate but really it's not worth it.
nothing posted on bulletin boards makes a difference to a company's SP.
They should be referred to XTR's "Black Monday" event.
And smartypants cryptic posters?
love how f a g has been replaced with *** ??
OK, complete back of *** packet numbers but how about just look at the RC open pit numbers, nothing else? The open pit part of RC appears to have approx 0.5MT of copper within 192MT of ore. The revenue is $4Bn at current prices, I have seen a Capex estimate of $1Bn for the whole capex including any required for the deeper mining after the open pit phase. So open pit capex must be less, surely? Then I have also seen quoted on LSE a processing opex figure of $10/ton of ore, so that is approx. another $2Bn of cost. Does that mean there is $1Bn plus profit potential in the open pit? Are there other costs missing here? Ok NPV will be say half that and any buyer would only pay for say a 3rd of the NPV. But that would still be significant dollars and many multiples above current SP. If you bundle in all licences with the sale giving potential big upside to a buyer, then seems like a decent chance of getting this over the line. Totally unsure on the opex cost per ton figure. Just what I have seen here. Anybody have a view on that. Obviously this will all be guess work until we see the RC model and open pit study
Nobody has shown it isn't economical (and the most recent interview Colin says they already know they have Decision to Mine). What has been demonstrated is that a proportion of the resource isn't due to the outcomes of the drilling but due to the shifted cut-off.
The only way forward for Xtract is the direction they are going..... publish the mining plan when they receive it and start the negotiation with AA ir wider market.
The only deviation (imo) that this discussion warrants would be a technical presentation with the team...... thats if they want to address the shareprice being below current asset value.... as that dip has been related to Bushranger and more specifically, non expert interpretation of Racecourse results published to date.
To quote Yazz...... the only way is up baby
Baaaaaa
So what do people now think XTR's options are re Bushranger? 1) Dump the whole thing because it's not economical and focus on the African assets? 2) Why is CB talking about their decision to mine? How realistic is this for a company like XTR?
Im confused with this unespected dump im down 56%
From Steve’s own post.
RE: Cheery post.
23 Oct 2022 15:43
>>I was at the AGM. Colin stated something to the effect that he wanted AA to say no, so we could go to the wider market, and AA would have 30 days to decide once we stated the 'decision to mine'.<<
Bewildered and somewhat dumbfounded that with the amount of drilling to RC has come up this short.
Could we be seeing a bit of resource manipulation?
I see, thanks. Yes all the CuEq / cut-off changing did my head in, which is why I tried but ended up not verifying your prior calculations. In any case I think all this goalpost changing by releasing incomparable numbers by CB does smell a bit fishy, and at the very least, if the new CuEq is a better metric (which it probably is), rerelease the old results but updated to account for this change in calculations.
I don't know enough about this company but I was also a bit concerned listening to the recent Sunday Roast podcast with how frustrated CB seemed to get and his insistence that XTR missing their target of 2 Mt was immaterial because they specified 2 Mt or mineable, and they are definitely going to mine it which means people should be happy (around 8:30). I also don't like how he was so laser focused on the 1.1 Mt Cu when it turns out this was CuEq and was actually under 1 Mt of Cu. It sounds nitpicky but 1 Mt seems like a big milestone and they are desperate to be classed above that and not to miss it by a hair. XTR have a lot of other resources which seem quite promising though, the Zambia mines and Ascot and such. So perhaps even if Racecourse isn't all it's made out to be there is still significant value in this share.
>> I ran his numbers (the basic ones on old and new JORC) and found the numbers check out on the 0.135 Cu%. I don't really understand how that could be included since the scenario had cut-off of 0.15%.
Yes, that had me stumped for a while. The answer is that the new JORC uses a CuEq cut-off, not Cu. Given the Gold is about 18% of the CuEq, that means the actual cut-off was about 0.123%, which explains why the addition was below 0.15% Cu. A fairer comparison is the new 0.2% CuEq cut-off, which is about a 0.162% Cu cut-off and compare that to the original 0.15% Cu cut-off. However, that makes things considerably worse than my original post.
I am sure if Colin and the board thought the share price was going to fall they would not have issued over 5 million shares at 3.23 in lieu of salaries three weeks but waited until now and received 35 % more shares !
I am sure they are shocked as much as anyone about the share crash
I find it extremely difficult to imagine that Jeremy read and quinton Mills (spelling may be wrong) have spent the last two years of their lives/professional careers to come back with a resource that is the same as before but they have lowered the cut off!!!!
Does that not sound insane?
Steve was an investor in XTR until last week.
And typically a good contributor to any discussions.
I see Steve has made over 2000 posts all of which relate to XTR and seems obsessed with the company and not even a shareholder so seems odd to me !
I was looking to get into XTR and the drop gave me a good opportunity, but I didn't pending checking why the drop happened and then checking Steve4077's posts. I ran his numbers (the basic ones on old and new JORC) and found the numbers check out on the 0.135 Cu%. I don't really understand how that could be included since the scenario had cut-off of 0.15%. Also, I don't know anything about mining and didn't check any of the numbers that fed into those conclusions. Given how many deductions had to be made to reach the resource conclusion I wonder if there are some specifics that lead to there being some invalid calculation in the background. Not sure for now so didn't dip my toe in just yet.
>> I'm not well disposed to debating with you but I'll just point out that you're wrong. The original 71Mt JORC'd resource was a net (after recoveries) 410kt of copper plus 229k ozs of gold - read Scenario 10 in the July 2021 RNS.
Yes, that is the scenario I referenced in my doc. Except it wasn't based on the 71mt at 0.3% cu cut-off. It was based on 162mt at 0.15% cut-off. Just read the RNS.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/bushranger-conceptual-open-pit-mining-study-c05hq78ws9qagfq.html
The recent RNS referenced 191mt, an increase of less than 30mt and only 45k tons more copper, with 0.20 CuEQ (not Cu). The Cu cut-off for that resource is about 0.162% once you remove the gold equivalent. It's effectively the same resource from the conceptual study last year with about 10% more copper. It was just presented in a way that disguised that.
The worst case in my mind is Bushranger has semi decent on sale value whatever as an exploration resource with ok already proven up copper - and gold - alongside decent potential to prove up meaningfully more copper - and gold - via further drilling campaign(s) too...and Africa gold on top of that adds a fair few 10's of more millions of share price value here too.. so a market cap of twenty million gbp ish is just too low whatever imho..
I note, with no little amount of amusement, that all the people aiming snarkey remarks at Steve4077 (who incidentally is doing you all a favour by challenging the CB spin and BS) have NO answer. If you disagree go and do the maths yourself and prove him wrong instead of trying to besmirch him and whine. It’s no good saying oh I’ll just wait for figures from this company. You are going to be waiting a long time and by then the SP will be 1p not 2.
“Why would Colin keep being positive about it if he knows he’ll be proved wrong in a couple of months”.
Maybe because he was hoping to get a placing off to set the next big thing in motion before Bushranger gets sidelined?
Steve has rightfully spoiled the party (and I am a shareholder).
Steve - The pdf map you linked to to evidence that the new JORC covers a much larger area is just another example of inconsistent/missing information that makes it impossible to assess the viability of a mine using the data we have.
Have another look at the most recent map and compare it to the one released at the end of phase 2 - links below. On the most recent map it looks like the new resource area is much larger but only because they have changed the size and shape of the inferred mineral resource (2018) area, which now appears smaller. Put the maps side by side and the new resource area is actually almost identical to the old one. Does that mean that we have 1.1mt of Cu Eq sitting in the same size conceptual pit? That would be great but I think it would be a dangerous assumption! Perhaps even Xtract don't know until the new modelling comes back. There are just too many unknowns.
This is why I was so dismayed when they released the new JORC without the modelling to confirm it has bankable value. They should have known that announcing a new resource estimate much lower than CB had led us to believe, would result in investors inevitably questioning CB's judgement/honesty re the viability of a mine too. And, boy, has the SP taken a kick-in because of it.
Steve, I completely agree that we need XTR to provide a side-by-side comparison of the new vs original JORC using the same parameters in both cases and to do so asap. And CB needs to wheel out the Oz team to present because I think there is still a lot of trust in them. What a mess.
Latest map: https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/2677H_1-2022-11-22.pdf
Old map (end Phase 2): https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/9166U_1-2022-8-4.pdf
You are forgetting Manica !. Personally I think the value of RC had been discounted months ago. I had always hoped Ascot would save the day but maybe not.
I'm not well disposed to debating with you but I'll just point out that you're wrong. The original 71Mt JORC'd resource was a net (after recoveries) 410kt of copper plus 229k ozs of gold - read Scenario 10 in the July 2021 RNS. That equates to about 450kt of "copper-equivalent" using the appropriate metal prices. The recent RNS described 191Mt at 0.33%, which is 0.63Mt before recoveries, or 544kt after. That's an increase of c0.1Mt of copper (equivalent) with a sale value of >$1.0bn.
With no acknowledgement from Colin from todays events it certainly looks like a drop into the 1,s is on the cards for tommorow unless he steadies the ship with one first thing tommorow , let’s hope so