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.
I ran a analysis of the new JORC over the weekend, comparing it to the old one and using only numbers provided in XTR RNS. I've dropped a PDF into the Telegram channel with the results, which is several pages long. The main conclusion though is that using a direct 0.15% cut-off, the phase 1 and 2 drilling updated the JORC from 470k tons of copper at 0.29% to 705k tons at 0.21%. The extra 235,000k tons was at 0.135% grade. Running the new numbers though the July 2021 conceptual study produces slightly worse results, because there is double the tonnage of ore but only 50% more copper. Adding the lower grade material below the 0.15% cut-off makes the economics worse.
I'm going to publish the analysis in a few linked posts but I won't be able to post the screenshots from the RNS
Sorry, several thousand. ;)
Same podcast different link
https://www.share-talk.com/colin-bird-executive-chairman-of-xtract-resources-xtr-l-interview/
Gixxer just for info
Earliest mention I’ve got link for of the magical 2mt back in April ‘21 at end of phase 1
@5min10
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/share-talk-ltd/id1093206470?i=1000516000961
It looks like Colin Bird's approach is rubbing off on you Porvenireal.
"several hundred better properties"
There seems little point in debating with you. I think I might have spotted an exaggeration
XTR can still drop Anglo's name in any news release, but Anglo's side of the agreement is VERY much "don't call me, I'll call you."
And so now we have the resource numbers.
OK, Anglo-Albanian might offer 100 million zloty's, but Anglo-American? Oh c'mon! It's like in highschool, a 6* pining over a 10... will only end in tears. *(being generous.)
Can a small or midsized company buy this Racehorse etc property instead? It doesn't have to a bigboy, anyone's money is good, right?
Well, the answer is no, and it's a standard problem in the porphyry exploration industry worldwide...ie...a porphyry mine is a long term, long life, HUGE CAPEX serious national undertaking.
Small and medium sized companies can't afford this, and will basically NEVER get such a notion financed, (even if the economics are golden.) So that leaves one, possibly two dozen companies worldwide, who can/will successfully finance the whole shebang, with a nice pay out for shareholders.
Problem there is, the guys in those companies, they're conscientious suits who know the name and phone number of several hundred better properties than this one, for them to choose and stake their careers on.
If you think I'm mischaracterizing Racehorse, I'm all ears.
The uncertainty is exactly why Colin should clarify.
Well put Andrew.
My only concern is the comment that we need to, “show them that we are moving toward financing.” Hence my earlier posts. Maybe I’m being too pessimistic and there is a clear path now to an end.
Listening back again, it’s was the show us you got a feasibility study comment that Stevem originally picked up on that made me doubt what I initially thought to then look at the worst case scenario. But on reflection I think his, ‘A’ feasibility study comment simply referred to an appropriate pfs.
Hi BL
We are tied into the agreement that is legally binding, it is designed to give AA first refusal but is not weighted in their favour. It gives us and them optionality, with a process toward a conclusion that will be followed in accordance with the agreement terms if they both cannot come to an agreed value. So trigger the process with DtM otherwise the only way to be free from it is if AA decide to let Xtract be freed from it basically.
For my understanding, if we decided not to DTM, and we don’t have 2Mt then buy back option is not triggered, so what stops us from then talking to other potential buyers? I presume nothing, yes? Or are we somehow then trapped legally. Can’t believe that’s true. In which case AA certainly don’t hold all the cards…..
LW
I've listened to the Thursday interview twice and my understanding is that we don't need to raise the money but just show how we would raise it. CB talked about showing AA the "figures" but my understanding is that he was talking about the figures in the economic model.
The model is designed to show that there is a business plan which shows there is a viable business model that could be financed and would result in a profit and when, against reasonable assumptions and proven figures. Think of AA as being the bank who are looking at a business plan to see if you should get a loan in principle.
So my understanding is that we don't need the financing, but a credible pathway on how we would get it and when and how much profit we would realise.
Another thing that needs clarifying from the interview is that Colin said he hadn't approched AA as they would want to know about our financing to support the DTM. That sounds like we cannot announce a DTM which would trigger AA to make an offer. We now know we dont have the 2mT CuEq which was the alternative way to trigger AA into making an offer so basically are we now in a position that means AA hold all the cards. They are not obliged to make an offer under the terms of the agreement and Colin implied they wont accept the DTM unless we have financing in place. Have we now got a 1.1mT resource that we literally cannot shift on as the AA agreement wont allow us to ?
LW
I understood he was saying the incremental value of each tonne (once Capex was paid back) would be $10/t or approx $200m gross profit a year. However I think it should be taken with a pinch of salt as I’m sure it’s the optimistic view and my understanding could of course be wrong.
Cheers
James
LW, you mischaracterize me. I am certainly not dancing in the endzone, or going on an "I told you so" national tour. I have had plenty of investing disappointments, and it's naturally hard to hear the negatives in those moments. Please, don't just assume I'm a ####, (we all owe each other that much at least.) A negative opinion doesn't imply negative intentions.
I'm still happy with my summary from 18 months ago...
RE: Colin Bird08 Jun 2021 16:29
Howezap is possibly the most enthusiastic liar here. The drilling results were a massive fail. NOBODY wants 2 million tonnes of sub-ore, least of all Anglo, who have hundreds of more attractive deposits in their little black book. All the gibber jabber since then has been designed to dance away from this brute fact.
A4444... good post. I think Colin needs to address without delay what he is basing his 200million per year revenue on. If he doesn't then for me it is demonstrating that it is indeed merely voicing wish lists. Unprofessional and misleading at best.
"a crap deposit".
A near surface "crap" deposit, not 1km underground like a certain deposit in Equador that I'm unfortunately also invested in.
It may be less than CB ramped it to be and I'm in no way defending his deception, but I don't see the need for block caving at Bushranger. Cascabel will be smelting their first copper when Bushranger has already produced enough to displace several battleships.
Lets see which one sells first and by how much profit from the SP's they are ATM
Porvenireal... let me explain something to you. There are a fair few LTHs here having discussions about their investment. Your transparent glee at their concerns is both cheap and unwanted and lacks class.
Joe, youre doing the hopeful, "next consequences" speculation that follows from demonstrating a good deposit. It just sounds silly with a crap deposit.
LW,
You re missing my point. I don't forsee us retaining 20%... for me it is going to be a complete sale . I'm just puzzled when people say, where are we going to get the money to fund 20% of the CAPEX?..... we will have just been paid for the other 80%, our MC would be high enough to raise easily and as the CAPEX will be against plant we would be able to raise through debt as well.......
Colin has made so much noise about not doing a JV for this, so this is just an academic discussion. I quite like the idea of that 20% being converted into a royalty stream as it would be a good longer term underpinning of the shareprice once we have had a special dividend and the company is back to exploring.....
Gooner221
Yep, and maybe CB will now realise that the short term benefit of being overly optimistic (yes I'm being kind) is paid for with interest when the facts are known. That may mean he will now be more circumspect in what he says?
(Yep I know that's nonsense and he will carry on giving us his wish list of events in interviews pretending they are realistic or likely expectations)
Same question asked what you mentioned & that is what would have happened with sp, if the expectation of amount of copper had been around the 1mt & not 2mt of which was all down to CB.
XTRACT AT 45MINS 15 SECS
https://audioboom.com/posts/8203544-sunday-roast-featuring-hanno-pengilly-ceo-of-ncondezi-energy-aim-nccl-est-ben-tm1-jlp-xtr
If an open and unfettered q&a with honest answers made the shareprice worse, would you be ok with that? If so, at least you're a reality-first investor. In a ceo's job description, honesty and positivity are always the top two criteria, but they will often conflict. Now, he could've said 6 months ago, "forget the 2 million tonnes, we're looking more like 1-ish," which would've been more honest I guess, but with the drills still spinning you're always running on hope. And that would've just brought forward the current price decline, and much the same people would've taken it in the neck.
His positivity has become harder now, with the minus-so-so results.
BTW - if you want some anonymity. I took me <5mins to set up that email address and you don't have to give your name at this point.
OK - Not even had a read receipt to my email below and I sent it to numerous contacts at XTR.
I think a way forward would be to get enough shareholders 10%+ Not necessarily to force an EGM but to force the BoD to take us more seriously and hold, at least, an open Q&A in the near term (the next few weeks IMO).
In light of that I've set up an email address, could anyone who holds shares please contact me via this email address and summarise what you'd like i.e. EGM/Q&A and list the number of shares you hold. Ideally we want 10%+ as we then do have the power to force an EGM.
resourcesxtract at gee mail dot com (hopefully that works)
Mr.Bird,
Well, after the 1.1MT bombshell has been dropped I was quite surprised to hear you, almost, berating shareholders for being unhappy with the results. You must realise that you'd set expectations to the market in many interviews and the results, to date, are well below those set.
I feel, in order to restore some good faith, and allay some SH frustrations, it would be good if you did an open Q&A session, perhaps with a few of the Aussie team also?
Regards
Dr JJBrown
(Email sent to Company)