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.
Just looked up 'kringing'. Very interesting and feeds into my background where I used to use statistics for my work in ballistics - but never hear of it! Now retired....
I had assumed something similar would be used to estimate the grades across the pit. I imaging this is why two extra holes were placed into RC at the end of phase 2. One cannot simply assume that two holes hundreds of metres apart have grades of Cu simply interpolated between the two. This is the difference between an 'inferred' and 'indicate' and 'measured' resources. Hence the two extra holes will not only prove up additional Cu but will give greater confidence to the Cu in the whole surrounding area.
Hi Cygnus yeah it really was either good fortune or the resulting effectiveness that the drone mounted EM surveying overlayed with the IP data. A technique they have been using with seemingly better success in targeting. This hole was an outlying anomaly to the east of Ascot. RNS 10th may hole 33
andmillsy,
I've never heard of kringing but I can ask.
Hi Cygnus
Do you know by any chance if your Porphyry PHD colleague has attempted to run a technique called kringing on any of the available assays and hole data ?
I feel they have chosen a career / academic path which will be in great future demand !
Stevemocal,
Yes, maybe you are right. It is difficult to get a sense of what the average across a large area is when the 'hot' zones are so patchy.
On a slightly different subject, I think the 15+ g/T of gold at Ascot suggests that there is a lot more there. You don't (almost) randomly drill hundreds of metres below the surface and accidentally hit a 2 metre stretch of gold like that.
Cygnus - If you look at the drill hole summary that is provided with the latest drill update RNS, you'll see that just about every drill hole in phase 1 & 2 has sections where the grade is 0.33-0.48%. Some sections are substantially higher.
Take your point. I've enjoyed the exchange. It was interesting to think it through and hear you too.
" So as investors where do we get our trusted information from on which to base our investments? "
I'd say a RNS.
I believe all the figures and statements there.
"Andrew 4444, the logical inference from what you are saying is that you now don't trust what the company says"
I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion tbh.
The logical conclusion is that there is no guarantee that everything that has been said will happen. So we may not get the 20P+ buy-out he implied or anything like the 2mt.
But that doesnt mean it wont happen, as I've said many times before. The fact that I'm still invested shows that my bet it that it is more likely that it will be OK in the end.
As I've said before, its not that you can't believe anything CB says, its that you cant believe everything he says.
Theice,
Yes, that occurred to me also but then the samples were said to have been taken from 3 different RC areas (plus 1 from Ascot) implying that those grades are available in each of those areas. Would be nice to think that those grades exist across the whole of the pit but the assays (generally) say otherwise.
Andrew 4444, the logical inference from what you are saying is that you now don't trust what the company says (ie your last 5 'insights' following the supposedly discredited first 5). I think Uscita was suggesting you can't trust anything a company says. So as investors where do we get our trusted information from on which to base our investments? You have to believe something as a truth, otherwise everything you invest in is a complete punt. We can't turn up with a rig and drill our own core samples.
I've been paying much attention reecenfly, so worrying this has been discovered or discounted.
Imo, for me the metal work used those grades because phase 1 of the pit will concentrate on the highest grades to cover the capex as quickly as possible and bring in a reasonable IRR -20-30%. Phase 2 of the open pit will bring in the lower grades (above .15%l essentially in a cheap way as they just need to cover opex and make profit imo.
Those "frank insights" would have value to the market if the previous "frank insights" were proven to be correct.
If someone said 10 things, the first 5 have proven to be incorrect would anyone be confident about the next 5 comments being correct or would they be sceptical?
I think the difference of option here could be due to the sample of occurrences. Post bushranger investors are basing their opinion on a much smaller sample compared to LTHs
I'm not saying it wont all turn out fine or maybe very well, but I think its wrong to dismiss any negative alternative view as nonsense or deliberately negative.
If that is your attitude, that you can't even rely to some extent on a grown-up conversation in the (I have to regretfully admit, completely sober) environment of a small AGM with the board of directors, who do you trust to get your information from? If you don't believe a word of what you hear you should not be investing at all, surely?
As I said a few days ago I am currently in contact with a friend's son who is doing a PHd in porphyries to try and unpack the logic behind what seem like high grades used when doing the met work - as reported in the last RNS. Although there have been no 'light bulb' moments I think I'm coming around to the idea that the met results would be consistent for both high and low grade samples but that using high grades give clearer results. Also, as I mentioned previously, maybe the lion's share of the copper will come from the higher grade areas of the pit and therefore it is acceptable to use these for the met work.
If anything new turns up I will let you guys know.
Cygnus.
JS I'll attend. Was away with work for last AGM but I attended the investor conference shortly before the AGM and the chance to talk directly with Colin in a smaller group was very valuable.
I'm glad we have the final slot of the day
The 88 Energy mugs used to go to the pub with their BOD and got absolutely rinsed. You've got to take it all with a pinch of salt.
As an investor there is a huge value to speaking directly to the BOD when for most of the year there is only the guesswork of bulletin board posters, albeit on a range from well respected to infuriatingly obtuse, to inform one's opinion.
I would prefer that the company did not embark on a hyped up media campaign. That lays out all sorts of claims and targets for naysayers to seize on and try to create mischief with. So in general counter productive.
And there is the problem... the frank insights have no value to the market.
There were around 30 people in the room. Its a really good opportunity to speak directly to Colin and the other board members present. My takeaway was that he is either a very good actor, or he speaks from the heart and feels he is saying it how it is. You certainly get a little more frank insight during the Q&A tahan you do form a formal communication such as an RNS. Sadly I cannot attend this year.
How many on here planning on attending the AGM, and if any were there last year, how was the turnout, how many people approx?
It will be interesting if they announce anything before the AGM. There will be some hard questions asked going by what people on here have stated. Without updating the market in advance what can Colin say ?. We know it is significantly bigger than when they first started drilling but after that ............... ?.
BHP are confident the price of copper will increase in 2025. It is hard to see how selling BR at current copper prices is maximising shareholder value, something he has also promised. (I know they use long term prices, none of which are above $5lb).
When you think about valuations of companies you need to consider the overall market conditions, which are quite negative right now, and the way small cap companies get valued and re-valued very quickly. XTR doesn't have any debt and doesn't need to raise funds in the next 12 months - how many AIM companies can say that? I for one believe that XTR's market cap should be much higher than £30M based on the African assets alone. Anything added from the Australian assets is an added bonus (which could be a very big bonus).
Often I see repeated comments that Colin has said this and Colin has said that about “not the death of a thousand lashes” or about missing his targets, or he said they were only going to drill a few holes into Ascot. yes, I have used many of his quotes and have been readily willing to believe them but my understanding now has allowed me to dismiss them as just attempts to rally the market.
I find it quite amusing that folk so readily and willingly, want to believe those particular comments but then choose to totally dismiss the repeated comments from Colin and also from the highly respected management team about the genuine overall resource potential and that Racecourse will be up around the 2mt mark, and with Ascot, the 2mt will be “by far the bottom end”.
Ok to be fair, I think the swing to the south was ‘maybe’ closed off earlier than they had hoped, with talk that with the potential of extending would see clear 2mt, but they appear confident more recently they are close anyway.
The mid December Ascot discovery webinar, also showed the clear potential of the new discovery, with Jeremy Reid saying we need to drill a load more holes into it to understand it, incidentally this was before Colin even mentioned the initial targets to talk to AA by April/may, with maybe getting away with just 3 holes into Ascot to say ,”there you go gents there’s your other porphyry”
The Ascot discovery webinar was clearly a stronger lead in understanding what they were already planning to do at Ascot and the fact they went to the trouble of producing the webinar, to then only suggest sticking a few holes in it doesn’t make any sense. So Colin was just doing Colin in his own unique way in telling the market what it probably wanted to hear to stir up some excitement.
It was also made very clear in the ascot webinar back then, that they were unable, through regulatory and other reasons, why they cannot provide the market with a running total, and only when the updated resource model for Racecourse is released will that total be reported, as opposed to the opinions here of holding back bad results because that’s what he tends to do!
My theory from all this, and so much more that is there if one takes the time to look or listen, all points to and supports the belief that the extended drilling in phase 2 was to realise the potential of another ‘Cadia like’ system as opposed to just chasing more copper because of a shortfall in their expectations and why they have shut up shop in reporting to hold off ‘perceived’ bad news.
There is a big difference.
I would prefer "keen to acquire XTR"