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.
The grades at racecourse we are seeing are typical of low grade porphyry ore of around the 0.2 - 0.3 with a higher grade crown that has already been drilled and modelled from the original 71mt inferred resource that gives a 0.44 Cu average at 0.3 cut off. It is these high grade zones, that make any porphyry deposits economical. The extent of racecourse mineralisation beyond the main inferred resource was not likely continue to be in the 0.44 range toward the outer margins and as such would be in line with expected results. As with the majority of the Boda system, it has typical grades between 0.2-0.3 with high grade deeper breccia zone that will make Boda economical. Similar bulk low grades in the range are seen at the Cadias too.
So grades certainly appear to be quite normal across the deposit. With an estimate from project director Jeremy Reid that a resource increase from 71mt to around 400-450mt will be there abouts to hit the 2mtCuEq target at a 0.44 average. This is with that economic cut off at 0.3Cu
The resource average grade will come down from 0.44 Cu but as has been stated the cut off will reduce from 0.3 down to 0.15 (expected) so it’s looking promising and in line with Colin’s repeated claims of 2mt or closer to it, from roughly 400mt+ of rock from calcs for Racecourse alone. The further infill drilling to improve the high grade lol recoveries in the early mine phase will also have a positive effect on those average grades if evaluation of the model warrants it.
Incidentally, if more credibility can be added to Colins comments on the project in the body of recent RNS’s, would that not then, give a degree of credibility toward not only Colin’s repeated claims of 2mt but also Jeremy Reid’s comments in interview? In fact I would say Jeremy’s comment gives credibility to Colin’s!
As iceberg put it, believing all what a CEO says is like believing all a car dealer says. I would not think that Jeremy Reid would want to sully his own professional integrity by making unrealistic claims.
Sentiment has changed direction somewhat this week, I wonder what news Colin is saving for the day before the AGM.
Ten days to go.
You can see clearly from the Legacy Minerals presentation and their quarterly report what a long ambitious task they have ahead of them, early days in their discovery of rockley, with some other projects similar in position not having been drilled yet with varying EM surveying and sampling done. They are into a $4.5m drill campaign JV with a drilling company to give shareholders more “discovery exposure” in addition to currently planned campaigns in two of their other projects. Although not at Rockley.
Would not like to guess how much of the current 12m MC of the company they will eventually have to give away to pull off any ‘meaningfull’ success in exploration and over time.
Giving away part of your company or funding through placements is what it is with exploration for small caps, and with no guarantees at any point of a successful outcome.
Xtract are in a different league with the ability now to self fund its exploration from income which puts them In an enviable position from other juniors.
Always worth the reminder what a healthy position they are actually in anyway, let alone the timing of being in the right space at the right time and with rising copper and gold prices particularly.
Thanks for sharing those figures. Shows what a difference a small increase/decrease makes to profits. I wouldn't be surprised if gold is over $2000 an ounce and £ is 1-1 with the dollar next year. Admittedly I am more bearish with the copper price next year than Colin and many on here are. For all the criticism of Colin I do think bringing Manica on line is a great achievement and he should be shouting about it.
I make you right Ice. The stars are all aligning. Reach for the sky.
Get your check books out mining companies
First come first serve maybe.....
https://www.mining.com/web/codelco-turns-to-artificial-intelligence-to-squeeze-out-more-copper-from-aging-mines/
Thanks iceberg and XTRe are so well positioned with Manica to benefit if gold strengthens
Empress have updated their monthly report and stated Manica expected commercial production in Q4 2022.
https://empressroyalty.com/investors/presentation/
They are also showing revenue from Manica as $2M in 2023.
Short headline is Ithis equates to Xtract EBITDA of US$10.5m p.a. at gold price of $1817 per oz.
A $55 movement in gold price moves Xtract EBITDA by $500k p.a. (up or down).
Full rationale:
Empress $2M p.a. is at 3.375% royalty rate and $1750 their assumed gold price per oz means they are forecasting about 34,000 oz of gold to be produced.
I think they are being conservative in this assumption as it could be as much as 42,000 tonnes per month processed with a yield of 2.62g/t (from XTR website) so producing 1300kg of gold per year which is about 45,000 oz per year. I recall Colin stating 100kg per month (yes it was in an interview)
Jamiescakes gave an estimated operating cost of $667 per oz and this seems realistic, maybe even high, based on AISC for Aussie gold producers
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KHqF-ARKmgn1MluerdxnxfYR6TH4DPsT/view?usp=drivesdk
So at today's spot price $1817 operating profit of $1150 per oz assuming $667 operating cost, on a middle ground volume of 40,000 oz p.a. @23% share = US$10.5m p.a. EBITDA.
The copper price has really risen.
https://mobile.twitter.com/IcebergShares/status/1558179363690106880
The gold price is doing well
Xtr is really really primed to go up sharply.
I don't normally make price predictions but this is screaming loudly.
Rockley, as most are probably aware, is close to EL5574.
Legacy have in earlier corporate presentations referenced Bushranger.
Interesting to see that we are now being referenced in their recent ASX announcement .
https://wcsecure.weblink.com.au/pdf/LGM/02545817.pdf
Few extracts:
1. Other significant explorers and miners in the Rockley-Gulgong belt include Newmont (NYSE: NEM), Alkane Resources, (ASX: ALK) and Xtract Resources Plc (AIM: XTR).
2. The tenement is located less than 15km from the emerging Bushranger Cu-Au porphyry held by Xtract Resources (AIM: XTR). The Rockley Project is also considered prospective for shear zone hosted gold and copper.
3. Remanent magnetism may also exhibit a negative response as seen at the Bushranger Prospect
Great to see we're being mentioned in the same sentence as the big boys and the fact that the approach at Bushranger is deemed as successful and being referenced and used by other explorers.
The whole report has a lot of information which others may get value or insights from.
Going to get strategically interesting in the next couple of days / weeks if (when) the Inflation Reduction Act gets passed (hopefully today?).
As if there wasn’t one already, this would be a clear sign for long term copper and the need for mines for next 20-30+ years and provide green light for large scale mining investment.
Time to get your cheque book out AA.
Cu$8,139. Good to see it above 8k again.
General summary for Ascot but concludes with both
31st may
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/ascot-prospect-drill-results-summary-0p0379d63vj8pug.html
Conclusion
>>The Phase 2 Drilling Programme at the Racecourse and Ascot prospects has intersected copper-gold mineralisation over 3km of strike length which forms a copper-gold mineralised trend that compares favourably to the mineralised porphyries at Newcrest's world-class Cadia mine and the Alkane's Boda-Kaiser trend which also occur over 3km of strike (refer to ASX announcement by Alkane Resources Limited 11 May 2022).
Ascot and Racecourse have similar widths of copper-gold mineralisation, with Ascot containing thicker and higher-grade gold intersections in comparison to Racecourse. Xtract is undertaking further assessment to understand the economic potential of these thicker, higher grade gold intersections, particularly at shallower depths. The Ascot mineralisation has currently been drilled over 750m of strike length and is open to the south and at depth. Geological data suggests that an equivalent to the best mineralised "crown" position above the porphyry at the Racecourse prospect, has not yet been intersected at Ascot. This provides further upside to what already one of the most significant greenfields porphyry copper-gold discovery in the Lachlan Fold Belt since the discovery of Boda in 2019. Xtract's assessment of the Ascot prospect is ongoing.
That is it I guess, after all is just a summary and followed up with the interviews.
For the reasons that has already been discussed (more believable and credible), my understanding was that an interim summary would have been, at least, in writing and hopefully via RNS.
Does seem strange that the intent was announcement in a very professional manner via an RNS and the result was done by an informal interview with all the vagaries that that method of communication contains (as previously acknowledged by many already)
It would not surprise me if we got an RNS with an interim summary of RC and Ascot in the next month or two
Interim followed up also with kev and Phil on 8th June for the record
https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hdWRpb2Jvb20uY29tL2NoYW5uZWxzLzUwNjQ0MzcucnNz&episode=dGFnOmF1ZGlvYm9vbS5jb20sMjAyMi0wNi0wNzovcG9zdHMvODA5Njk4NA%3D%3D
Hi Andrew I believe it followed straight after on the 31st may although titled ‘Ascot prospect drill result summary’ it concludes at the bottom with an overall summary that includes Racecourse.
Followed same day with a podcast with Zak
https://podcasts.google.com?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hdWRpb2Jvb20uY29tL2NoYW5uZWxzLzUwNTExMzMucnNz&episode=dGFnOmF1ZGlvYm9vbS5jb20sMjAyMi0wNS0zMTovcG9zdHMvODA5MjcxNg%3D%3D
Yes agreed.
RNS should be much more believable than what is said in an interview and does contain a degree of legality and can't be walked back from.
Unless Ive missed this interim summary (I may have) then should we not have had the interim summary by now?
It stated "shortly" and that was 2.5 months ago in an RNS.
27 May RNS
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/bushranger-project-assay-results-gxq7ur5ugggwkj5.html
"We intend to issue a release shortly that gives an interim summary of the Racecourse and Ascot prospects."
Very much agree. An RNS is quality controlled.
Personally that’s why I can’t wait for the jorc - whatevr it’s size. Like an RNS it has a degree of legality and meaning that can’t be walked back from.
There is a fair argument I’ll agree regarding wether or not Colin has been over optimistic in his estimates in podcasts, but the same cannot necessarily be said from comments in RNS.
17th may RNS
>> Modelling continues at the project, with the Racecourse prospect indicating that it has grades and tonnes justifying a rework of the conceptual open pit."
30th June RNS
>>The phase 2 exploration programme is about to be completed and when we have modelled and evaluated all the raw information, we will be well advanced on the value curve and able to position the project in the global market.
30th June RNS
>>In general, our exploration activities in Australia have been extremely encouraging and without a doubt we have discovered a major system, well beyond our original expectations.
The first is significant in that it supports the decision to mine. The second suggests at the very least the resource model confirms there is adequate tonnage for purpose. I personally now don’t care now what CB said in the past as a hook, as long as the objectives are now met at a ‘minimum.’
I’ll say we, as I am guilty too, of putting too much reliance on what CB has said in the past, even the 2mt target and possibly the buy back agreement in general.
The RNS excerpts highlighted, have been included in the body of the RNS’s, although both are Colin’s comments, the latter from year report, they surely hold more credibility over the interview comments, with a strong inference that phase 2 objectives have been met.
That’s all that matters as a baseline target for a likely outcome of a total sale of asset.
That’s originally why I invested.
The eventual value of BR is dependent on fine margins. If these vary just minimally then the numbers can mushroom quickly. There's mention this morning of 10 & 15 p but if theiceberg is correct and the license (RC & Ascot) totals, say 2.5 MT, a value of 10K/T of Cu is assumed and we get a buy out % for Cu in the ground of 3% (each of which are very possible) then the value per share is of the order of 60p each.
I'm not saying we will get that but this all depends on fine margins and if some of the numbers go our way the current hand wringing is going to look rather silly.
"I don't understand why you would take a CEO-chairman on his word wrt targetx."
Yep completely agree. Hence my points below
I don't understand why you would take a CEO-chairman on his word wrt targetx. It's like believing a used cars salesman or even a new car dealership where they say a car can do70 mpg but in reality it's nearer 45.
Nobody is saying he's lying, but a future projection is NOT a fact, he a forward statemen t.
That being said I have no doubt the license contains more than 2MT.
I've said many times how ambitious 2MT is and even 1MT is worth far more than our current mcap.
I don't understand being cross with a CEO because he's only making your 100-400% rather than 500-1000%.
Btw copper is continuing to rocket up (at least in commodity terms) back above 8000t.
We won't get 10p, it will have to be 15p or above to give the guys working on it thier Brucie bonus.
No point having options at 10p otherwise. L
Therefore Colin and the team have to continue drilling and adding value till they are happy.
I will be staying.away from this board as much as I possibly can as this will be going on for at least another 6 months, possibly 12.
So much for jorc in January........
"if we come up short, his credibility will be in pieces"
Possibly.
If we are just short of the 2mt, say 1.8mt then I doubt anyone will be wanting to be too critical of CB. Obviously the risk of criticism will increase as the tonnage gets lower.
That said, even at, say, 0.9mt declared, the more forgiving shareholders may take to the view that all CB had done is do what we all know he does - be overly optimist with his predictions and comments. So why be surprised or, moreover, annoyed when someone who is always optimistic is....optimistic!
This would not be my view (if it was just 0.9mt) . If we explained all CBs failures away by using that excuse then CB will never be accountable when results, not matter how bad, did not match forward guidance or predictions.
It is a matter of subjective opinion. Some may take the view that at say, at 1.4mt, CB has been deliberately deceptive and others, at the same tonnage, conclude he's been slightly optimistic.
My own view? As ever the results will very likely be much lower then CBs forward guidance , but good enough to ensure a buy-out at a sp significantly higher that what it is now and good enough to keep most shareholders from being critical of CB.
After a buy-out of say 10p , the different conclusions of a subjective view, that CB had been either: a bit optimistic or very optimistic or deliberately deceptive or a liar - will probably be irrelevant and forgotten about.
Well, that's what CB will be hoping :)
I see your point. However is it not less than a month of expected time scales. Therefore we might be a little premature on creating the lynch mob. So long as he hasn't completely lied to us, he might be forgiven for a reasonable over run. Which i would think timing is a very difficult thing to get right all factirs considered. I for one like to stay till the end and see things through. To my detriment on occasion i might add
The f,ct is that CB has alluded on more than one occasion, albeit not by RNS, that 2mt is a walk in the park. We can all say do your own research but chats with Sunday Roast and Zac are part of that research and if we come up short, his credibility will be in pieces.