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.
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)
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.