The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen 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.
It would be good to hear the thoughts on this topic from the better informed on here as I believe it’s key to the value of the whole thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIwR_0S7SEJust reminding myself why I invested and looking back at this presentation from a year ago. When comparing the original open pit with the new resource it looks to me they were successful in converting waste rock into ore especially around the SW and north. This was one of their objectives of phase 2 drilling. I just can’t see this team sending off the data to a 3rd party for an economic model only to be told it doesn’t work? I think the market has got this wrong.
JS I am aware of the results from no man’s land which were important for defining the limits. I’m not saying it needs to be drilled further. When have I said that? I apologise if you have misunderstood me somewhere.
The question now is, why is there now a rhetoric toward this particular area between Ascot and RC in light of the drilling result summary given previously. Which incidentally, doesn’t state it is ‘not’ of economic grade but ‘considered’ to be below viable mining grade. There is an apparent difference and until the data is modelled by the independent consultants they cannot be certain either way as I, and I’m sure many others understand it.
subscription needed for that!
New tech to lower costs of rock breaking.
https://www.ft.com/content/bdedd7de-94fe-409b-adf3-43c6e201c86f
howezap - why is this, taken from an RNS in July, still not good enough for you? So you think they should just keep spending money by putting holes in this area? You keep going on about how this area hasn't been explored effectively, what more do you think they should do?
-- Assay results for holes drilled between the Racecourse and Ascot deposits have defined the southern limit of the Racecourse Mineral Resource and the northern margin of Ascot
-- Hole BRDD-22-042 cut a lengthy interval of low-grade copper mineralisation to the south of the Racecourse deposit which is considered to be below viable mining grade and will thus be valuable in defining the southern limit of the conceptual open pit
Precisely G600. Even if barely marginal, it would make sense to process this, as it would cost more to put in the two faces opposite each other in separate pits. As Andrew says, the modelling of the pit - resulting in what’s economic and what isn’t - is much more complex than simply multiplying the grades x tonnage. We will have to wait and see. I personally don’t think all is lost yet.
Thanks for your thoughts guys/girls.
If CB was planning to mine the area between the two deposits then it does suggest that he thinks the low grades there are of some value. I realise he may not have had all of the grade information at that time but I suspect the geos would be able to make a rough estimates from some in-house tests.
JS how is that rubbish, until it is explored effectively, how are they going to know? It is not known yet if , or at what Cu price it would be economical.
The "not being economic" conclusion re the gap between RC and Ascot is obviously dependent on costs as well as grade. It could be that once the mine is built and paid for from higher grade Cu near surface, we have zero Capex and only opex left for extraction and processing of "the gap" ore .
There still could be some profit in mining "the gap" if that was the case. Maybe not a lot of profit, but more than not processing it??
Not saying that will be the case but its a possibility if you have zero capex in that assessment.
This discussion is very relevant when considering the response to the RC MRE and the pronouncements from amateur mining experts (we've all read the posts) commenting on bald % figures and suggested cut off rates.
A complex system is clearly far more nuanced than someone's weekend calculations can do justice to.
Good point BM, would it be more efficient to go through that 'uneconomic' region between RC/AC even if you just break even?
That region could have the plant close by and be the the entry/exit slope for plant? Left AC - Right BR
Rubbish from howezap again. While there is potential for Ascot (although this looks significantly less than previously thought given the poor follow up drill results), the drilling between the two prospects has already proven that the area between is not mineralised enough for it to be economical.
LW, it may be the case that even with low grades in between RC and Ascot, digging a single pit would be more productive than having 2 separate pits, for the reasons I have given below. So grades that weren’t economic if in one of the standalone pits, may become economic if they are dug out as part of a single pit. Because you’d then not have two unproductive facings on either side of the area in between the 2 stand-alone pits. Logically this would be so, but I’d guess it’s all down to the grades in between RC and Ascot, when it comes to pit design. I wonder then if the Ascot MRE will be issued as a standalone MRE - in which case maybe 100-200kt of cu eq, or whether this MRE will now be issued as an extension to RC, with the previously uneconomic area in between now becoming economic. In which case the MRE could be considerably larger.
I agree with you chaps, also with the potential to join up all the resource maybe outweighed the potential to increase Ascot.
CB made a point of emphasising, the reasoning behind why they chose the Decision to mine, against rather than chase the 2mt with resource ‘not’ joined up for reasons stated.
CB touched on this topic a few times as I recall, it was not just to see if the two connected. And you sort of answered your own question.
Firstly, they sort of were looking to see to what extent the two systems connected.
Secondly, it was necessary to carry out the work in order support where the plant could go. He stated in an interview that 'you don't want to sit your plant on top of pay dirt' so it was part of the process of finding the extent of the open pit area.
I get the feeling that Colin pulled rank on this and insisted that those drills were done.
Let’s assume there are 2 pits, square, and with sides x. So 8x of facings. A single pit joined up, will only have 6x of facings. Where the previously unproductive ore between the 2 pits is now productive and is dug out economically. With 2 pits you have 2x of gradients/facings to form ( unproductive ore in between) and this costs more than a single (longer) pit. That’s my take, anyway, Cygnus.
I have a general question that others may be able to answer.
There was a lot of drilling between RC & Ascot in an attempt to join the two. From what I could pick up it seemed that there was an emphasis to try and prove the link between the two systems. Personally I can't see the issue here. If the two are not linked it does not seem to be important as any local mill can be situated between the two and ore can be hauled out of each. Yes it would be nice if the two were linked as that means more Cu and a miner can make a clean sweep of the two but there did seem to be a lot of effort when the results were not convincing. More effort could have been invested in extending Ascot. Can anybody explain ?
Thanks in advance.
3% up, as are US equities all on the back of better US inflation data
Nice jump:
https://www.ifcmarkets.com/en/market-data/commodities-prices/copper?_ga=2.111885252.1971373996.1668337472-132894802.1667921726&_gl=1*lm7u39*_ga*MTMyODk0ODAyLjE2Njc5MjE3MjY.*_ga_BHWDNT84P5*MTY2ODM2NjU0Mi4xNy4xLjE2NjgzNjY1NDIuMC4wLjA.
Not to look at the sp until the New Year (unless an RNS pops up in my mail box, of course)!
"but I can imagine that Ascot will only be a few 100K of Cu but probably at a goodish grade"
I am expecting circa 0.2Mt increase from Ascot so similar to your view. CB said we should get another 0.2mt from RC after reworking the model.
We may get close to 1.5mt
Its so frustrating, as we have a big resource, but CB's over optimism and misdirection really has caused a negative reaction to what is a big find.
Will CB learn form this?
Of course not !
Zaphod,
Have yourself a pan galactic gargle blaster and im sure you will have a rosy outlook too ??
Butlerman, I respect your unfounded optimism in expecting a Colin Bird company to deliver any thing on time. The SP is going to sit in the doldrums until the Ascot MRE is released or the Manica income figures are published. I would not hold your breath for either.
Let's just hope that whenever they are published they meet or exceed expectations.