The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
Do all the research you want but, altogether, there's clearly much chance involved in the commodity exploration game.... therefore I think peoples expectations of MR CB's - or his peers in other AIM Commodity plays - opinions are often too high.
In case of confusion, I have little towards no doubt that CB gives broadly genuine opinions.... but drilling 'oles looking for commodities is a plenty inexact science, even these days.. and they're his opinions only, that of course change at least somewhat, perhaps a lot, as the exploration program progresses.
Altogether, I'm reasonably happy with CB's progress and opinions so far on Bushranger.. and while I think the s/p could easily be higher now, I'm not shocked at where it is either.. and that's only valuing Bushranger at max. 2p out of the approx 4p current s/p btw.. I especially say this in the context of an understandings I've developed over the years in this game, that, year on year, the AIM Market is more and more focused on the 'in play' betting and less and less focused on longterm buy and hold.
Finally, generally, I think 'the market' is more savvy than the punters like to entertain, and equally punters - and anyone who plays AIM commodities is a punter imho - are less savvy than they'd like to entertain.. and I absolutely include myself in that last bit too
It suits the BOD getting paid their salaries though.
The policy of providing a NED with a bonus who is the chair of the remuneration committee is a bit of a red flag for me in addition to the comms.
According to BDO only 2% of AIM NEDs received a bonus
Another 8 months is too much in my opinion.It goes against everything CB said about this project.
Yes I know about the discovery expanding and the " giving away a Cadia" argument and I agree to a point.
I do think we are sweeping around for crumbs now and that can sometimes cost you more than it's worth.
I was happy with 3-6 months slippage but I don't want to be sat here in a year's time still at 4p.
Let's see what the AGM brings......
Vote against reappointing Allistair Ford. I do wonder if he is responsible a policy of downbeat presentation of news.
He seems to be as much use as an ashtray on a motorbike.
Looks like the rise was from the pump crew having knowledge before the rns came out again!!
Don't think we are getting the model soon and the next drill campaign will take another 4 weeks for drill approvals, one week per hole? Maybe 10 weeks for drilling. Then there's 8 weeks for the assays and don't forget the months for creating another model. These are all minimum time scales!! So minimum another 8 months??
Look on the bright side, we can get some more into the isa in April!
Another really good point Cygnus about the resource class. The first pit study was based on the inferred resource so was really just an exercise to show potential. The new study will be based on an upgraded/part upgraded indicated resource that carries a higher degree of geological confidence that carries over to give credibility to the financial study that an inferred resource does not.
Another strong indication toward the decision to mine of which the infill drilling Colin suggested they would do in very early phase 2.
It again is supportive of the intent to proceed with the decision to mine long before it was suggested that they are only considering it to trigger the buy back because of the ‘perceived’ lack of tonnage from RC.
Another piece to the puzzle maybe. Does make sense.
'A pinch of salt' doesn't mean don't believe anything they say. I'm not sure how you could infer that.
It means remember they have their motivations and incentives and you have yours and they may not always align exactly
I'm very much a novice on this technique and may have even mis-spelt kriging!
This link is one I harvested from GGP which gives some insight.
I hope your background in ballistics proves helpful when the share price here explodes :)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wlFXrqKsQz5BZAd7Qqu1g17cP7JM0ndb/view?usp=sharing
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