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.
Think, somebody mentioned for EGM it takes 10% of shares in issue held by holders to request one.
Overall though a straight Q & A would probably be the fastest route to take that though is down to whether or not CB goes for it.
The EGM though I think he would have to attend.
Their ******* not mine.
Aren't algorithms wonderful!
Don't disagree ****nal221.
We would like clarirty; fat chance as spreading confusion seems to be CB's approach. Wonder if he really knows?
An EGM would need a resolution, other than "communal winge".
Zak or Roast could maybe host a Q & A, worth an enquiry, but he is their pet podcaster!
What we don't need is a side order of Zambia! Alluded to in one of this weeks podcasts.
What are the rest of the Board doing? Joel and Kjeld both have directorships with other CB companies (Galileo and Kendrick), don't know about Ford. So at best they are part time on Xtract. As is Colin!
Dust has a while to go before settling completely in my view.
As has been mentioned.
The best thing for shareholders is a Q & A or an EGM meeting.
We haven't been shown where Colin gets the 200million per year revenue from or did I miss that somewhere. In 18 months time will Colin declare that shareholders misunderstood what he meant again ?
Joeman... leaving nothing for shareholders until the mine is up and running. I for one don't want that. Colin said previously he didnt want a JV as then the major partner would be calling all the shots in terms of the timescale and development program. If Colin's revenue claim of 200million/annum is in the right ball park what do you think that 4billion over 20 years is worth to someone ?
If we sold the 80% to AA for 200million we would then have the funds to pay our share of 1billion CAPEX.... not sure what I'm missing here.
But it is academic as I think it will be a total sale 100%.
If there is a good reason for saying what he has it would have to be good enough so that the why has made the SP fall worth it in what would hopeful be the short term.
He has the data... he could share what he knows but needs time to plan something so making us wait for the official revised open pit study gives him that time ? Who knows what Colin is thinking. He did say he doesn't want to chase unjoined bits of resource. I suppose Ascot is different as we did start poking holes in it.
Why not LW? For the suggestion of both resources to be utilised in the mining study twice in the RNS would certainly imply a positive outlook for either the 1.5km bit between rc and ascot to be of economic grade or that ascot could be mined simultaneously to share processing capability.
Got the impression Colin was itching to confirm something but opted for a bit of obvious reverse psychology in saying “I’m going to be negative in saying…….” With CB it’s sometimes not what he actually says but why he says it.
Quite. Colin said he hopes Ascot joins up. The study can't possibly be for extracting both Racecourse and Ascot from the revised open pit study if he doesn't know if Racecourse and Ascot join ? Those two interviews give me the impression they describe wishlists rather than something based on factual evidence. When pushed on an answer Colin has started this "cant possibly negotiate in an interview" but then says he hasnt even spoken to AA. We dont want negotiation detail Colin, but some honesty so we can evaluate our investment.
From Updated JORC RNS
>>Once, the maiden Mineral Resource has been defined for Ascot, we will update the open pit mining study, which will detail the economics of a 25Mtpa mining operation, based upon extracting both the Racecourse and Ascot Mineral Resources. We expect that the open pit mining study will be completed early in 2023."<<
Just to make things even more confusing LW
I have to ask if we are deliberately being blinded by purposely confusing figures in these interviews. The same happened with the early alluvial projections. We need to be given facts as shareholders or how else can we do the research to evaluate our investment. I get why it may suit Colin that we are given confusing figures but enough is enough. The interview hosts should keep the questions direct and give Colin an opportunity to give direct answers rather than chip in with their own opinions regarding figures mid interview which Colin doesn't then actually correct.
I thought Kevin made it more confusing ‘again’ the gist was payback after about 4 years with the remaining 3-4 years of the high grade giving high return of profit, then the next 16 years @$200m per annum based on $10,000 per ton
Please correct if that’s wrong
"Colin quoted the open pit will deliver 200m (presumably $) per annum revenue. How can he quote that revenue figure without already knowing whats in the study ? "
CB said that in an interview. Best to take it with a pinch of salt or best just ignore it.
Its probably what he thinks could happen or wants to happen, rather than any empirical evidence supporting that figure.
The updated mining study for the open pit is due early 2023. Colin quoted the open pit will deliver 200m (presumably $) per annum revenue. How can he quote that revenue figure without already knowing whats in the study ? That revenue is after 4billion has been deducted from the $8 billion in ground Cu value. Does this mean by quoting 200m/annum that it is now profitable as he has the study figures already ?
From July 2021 study >>>Shareholders should note that the Conceptual Study is preliminary in nature and includes inferred mineral resources that are considered too speculative geologically to have the economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorised as mineral reserves. The Conceptual Study is based on low-level technical and economic assessments and is insufficient to support estimation of Ore Reserves or to provide assurance of an economic development case at this stage, or to provide certainty that the conclusions of the Conceptual Study will be realised.
From updated JORC
>>> The Racecourse Mineral Resource contains 50Mt @ 0.25% CuEq which has been classified as Indicated in accordance with JORC (2012)
The question is, will 50mt indicated be sufficient to provide that economic assurance to a partner to come onboard of our 20% interest toward a 200-$250m investment toward capital outlay in a resource that can only be converted to a ‘probable’ ore reserve?
With eyes wide open, I think not!
Hence design and base the dtm on a much smaller starter pit and mining operation of 10,20,50ktpa to run ore offsite for sale or processing nearby with far less to finance and satisfy a partner.
The hurdle is to trigger the buy back above all else that is the most important thing.
" I'm still considering 20p as easily within reach"
Possibly, but I think the main driver in determining any buy-out price will now be POC.
We now have a good idea of Mt, even though it my increase a bit, so the biggest variable will be POC IMHO. CB said they will play around with different copper prices and see what figures they get (after model done). I bet they will show a massive difference in economics depending on POC used.
As we all know, the relationship of POC to profit is not a linear progression, but a geometric curve progression.
Whatever level POC needs to be to ensure a sale or to ensure best buy price, I'm sure it will get there before end of next year at the very latest.
We could possibly benefit from a FB style deal. Taking a cut of the 200million/annum revenue for no outlay.
Yes... but then need to find 20% of the start up costs... 20% of 1billion.
If we were in an 80:20 JV,(which I don't think we will be), we would have the 200million from the sale of the 80%.... no worries.....
hTTps://www.mining.com/worlds-biggest-copper-mine-moves-closer-to-strike/
Agree. What a stat to quote. Especially in Aus near infrastructure. And open pittabke.
"Andrew - you should volunteer to take on the PR for XTR!"
Thanks but Andy Mills has got that covered :)
If I worked with CB, I suspect we would have some "professional disagreements" on the best way to promote the company and what should and shouldnt be said in interviews:)
Andrew’s research earlier today revealed that Bushranger at 1.1MT is the 9th largest copper discovery in the last 10 years - in the world! What a missed opportunity from a PR viewpoint! If this had been front and centre in the RNS and Colin’s podcast, then the SP may not have sunk so low - even with the disappointment of not making 2MT. Andrew - you should volunteer to take on the PR for XTR!