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.
Jumpstreet is a 1 day old account with 9 posts, with his first being a thread starter called "Check Steve4077 for pump & dump", only on this BB. Having read through Steve's calcs I don't see anywhere he is saying there is 74 kt Cu or is ever multiplying by the cut off. Both these statements are just laughable. I have a bad feeling that Steve is correct that this is Kevin, and that would just compound the embarrassment of this whole debacle. The MM / escalation threats really are low when you can't dispute anything he has said.
Night of the over inflated ego ;)
He has caused shareholders a lot of misery and lost thousands of pounds but to be honest having recently lost my mother and my brother in intensive care money is irrelevant but after over 2000 posts on XTR just give it a rest
Hahaaaaa that's so funny, I'm not even a man
OK, I think we need to agree to disagree about your identify then, as you use the same language and phrasing, similar attacks, etc. and even third parties realised straightaway who you were. By all means continue posting, but you are now green boxed.
I'm not Kevin, I literally have no idea what you're on about, but it doesn't surprise me that I'm the first person to notice your market manipulation tactics.
I literally have never posted on here before and only joined because I saw how much you talk about MM in your past posts, and I had to share it with others to mitigate the damage you might do.
I am a stranger to you, I have no idea who you are and I only saw your messages yesterday, but if I've noticed and this Kevin has noticed, and the CEO of Xtract has noticed, then you need to realise there's a reason for it.
Kevin, maybe when you create new accounts to attack me and try to distort the message, perhaps use different language than you use in your threatening PMs and on the forums. Only you have talked about "trashing the share price" and "escalation".
Perhaps you could try using data or reasonable arguments, rather than attempts at intimidation or threats of legal action on Telegram, and now attempts to muddy the water here with spurious unrelated numbers.
In fact, I really hope you are trolling and those were not serious comments about the calculations.
Is that you, Kevin? :)
Looks like you've got yourself in a sticky situation Steve, trying to manipulate share prices can land you in some serious trouble.
Now you're fighting for your life in the comments, but it is clear that you did this for your own benefit, from all your previous rhetoric about MM and your dodgy calculations that you are now trying to backtrack on.
Even the CEO isn't happy with you and is not going to take the trashing of the company SP lightly, so you better cross your fingers and hope it doesn't get escalated, because you know what that will mean...
A reminder, since you seem to be so forgetful about everything you have said, here's you today at 15:30, Steve...
"922k tons at 0.08% Cu" ?? 922k tons at 0.08% Cu is less than 74k tons of Cu. Where in the XTR RNS did you see those numbers?
The RNS had a table that breaks down the resource by cut-off and grade. The 1.1m tons is for 512mt at a cut-off of 0.1% CuEq and includes both copper and gold. The copper grade is 0.18% so 512mt x 0.18% = 922k tons of copper. The gold grade is 0.05 g/t. Converting that into 'copper equivalent tonnage' accounts for the other 178k tons. The 0.01% CuEq cut-off is a combination of copper and gold grades, so with gold accounting for 18%, the copper grade cut-off is approximately 0.082%. Hence, 922k tons of copper at a 0.08% cut-off.
Yes, I did post that on 8th November. Note the line about "Once news drops and sparks wider interest (assuming it is generally in line with expectations),"
The 23rd November RNS provided new data that was plainly NOT in line with expectations. I'm an analyst. If the expected data changes, then my conclusions change too.
OK, I am giving up on this for now - I don't think the recent posters and I have a common frame of reference :)
Lets see what theiceberg comes up with, as he us a neutral party. I think we can agree, regardless of current beliefs, that we are all eager to see the new updated model.
Steve you literally posted this on the 8th November:
I think everyone that has done their research is already invested. With no news for now, there is nothing to spark new investors, so the share price drifts down down on minimal volume. While it might have fallen to 3p-ish, the number of shares actually sold in recent weeks is only a small percentage of the total held. The MMs try to generate activity (which is how they make money) by moving the price around - usually down - far more than the trading activity would suggest.
Once news drops and sparks wider interest (assuming it is generally in line with expectations), the price is likely to move up rapidly, which is to the advantage of those already invested. Currently, its a test of patience and faith in your own research.
I am sorry, but what are you talking about? In which line of my post do I:
" Multiply the 922 by 0.08% (cut-off/minimum grade) = 922*0.0008"
Given your posting history from yesterday, I suspect this is actually an attempt to confuse the issue, rather than an an inability to read or do maths.
*** packet out
512mt at .22% = 1.1264 mt copper equiv
191mt at .33%=630,0000 t copper equiv
A capx of of 1bn $ processing costs of 3$ -6$ per kg $8000/t copper
1.1264 mt at 90% recovery is say 1mt
Total value of contained copper equiv is $8bn
From the above we have more than half the contained copper in the higher grade core.
Taking not account 90% recovery we have 567,000t with a value of $4.536bn
Weighting the capx on he higher grade say $1bn we have a value of $3.536bn for half the mine to balance the books on lesser grades.
The production costs can vary but take the average $4.5/kg we have a cost per tonne of $4500
I note colin mentioned the mine in Sweden which I believe is fully automated so production costs could come down considerably
that would give a profit of $3500 per tonne copper
Going back we have 567,000 contained copper with a $3500 /t profit equivalent of $1.985bn profit for half
the mine.
I could go on with lower grades but my point is that there is a feasable mine no one has a crystal ball and predict prices but with fixed capex and production costs any incease in poc puts multiples on the bottom
line.
As you can see anyone can come with what they want by manipulating data.
I stand to be corrected on the above and put out for discussion.
I can show you his exact calculation and where he has gone wrong vs the actual calc:
Steves calculation is as follows:
- Then take the above 512 and multiply by the 0.18% (expected actual grade) = 0.512*0.0018 = 0.9216m
- Multiply 0.9216 by 1,000 to convert from millions to k = 0.0009216*1,000 = 921.6 (or 922 rounded)
- Multiply the 922 by 0.08% (cut-off/minimum grade) = 922*0.0008
There are two mistakes in this approach, one is the minimum cut-off used has been stated as 0.08% when it is actually 0.1% as per the most recent RNS, and the 0.18% (expected) should be 0.22%.
But the biggest mistake by far, is multiplying the expected and THEN the minimum AS WELL.
The actual calculation should be minimum vs expected:
- Expected is 0.22%, so take 512m multiplied by 0.22% = 512*0.0022 = 1.1264
- Minimum is 0.1%, so take 512m multiplied by 0.1% = 512*0.001 = 0.512
So, the expected amount of copper is 1.1m and the absolute minimum copper would be 0.512m or 512k (not even close to the 74k Steve has calculated, because of his double multiplication)!
This reconciles with Colin Bird's rhetoric around having 1.1m and also reconciles with the most recent news release from 23rd November, titled "Xtract Resources notes updated mineral resource estimate", if you want to double check these numbers for yourself.
Hi Steve - I want to split it out to allow a fair comparison with the original JORC, which has been my main focus in the last couple of days. I think the modelling debate has distracted a lot from that point. If my JORC calcs are correct and there is only 10-15% extra copper compared to the original JORC, then any model is not going to be far off the XTR conceptual model for last year, especially as the additional copper is lower grade. Maybe I should take the XTR numbers from July 2021 and convert the original JORC into CuEq - that might be a clearer approach.
Agree on the football and beer :)
Sad but this is heading one way until the conceptual model comes out to justify this is economic to mine .
I don't see anything wrong with anyone's maths... you're just calculating different things.
Steve - Perhaps it would help if you could explain why you think it is important to separate the Cu Eq figure in the new JORC, into the separate copper and gold components? Is it just to allow comparison to the earlier JORC (2018) or are you implying there is something more sinister behind it e.g. Xtract trying to hide something?
It is worth noting that the buy-back clause refers to contained Cu Eq, even though AA's own JORC (2018) had the copper and gold quantified separate. If anything, it was surely AA that prompted the use of Cu Eq as the measure?
Anyway, enough of this for today. There is beer to be drunk and football to be watched. Evening All.
>> Steve, I think your calculation is wrong because you multiply the copper by the minimum grade cut-off (the 0.1%) and then after that you ALSO multiply the copper again by the maximum amount (0.22% from RNS or 0.18% in your calc).
I was trying to avoid posting again today, but this doesn't seem to want to die.
I am not multiplying by 0.1% anywhere - I'll put the calcs in several lines so you can tell me which one is wrong
Firstly, here is the RNS
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/racecourse-prospect-updated-mineral-resource-k5dfrxajgs0ls13.html
1) Here are the numbers in the RNS for the 0.1 CuEq line
Cut-off: 0.10 CuEQ
Copper Grade: 0.18% Cu
Gold Grade: 0.05 g/t
Silver Grade: 0.72 g/t
Copper Equivalent Grade: 0.22%
Tonnage 512mt
Contained CuEq 1.1mt
Just in case you are not aware, all the cut-off means is that ore below that grade is ignored - it is not part of the calculation in any other way
2) 512mt x 0.18% Copper Grade = 922k tons of copper
3) 512mt x 0.05 g/t = 25.6m g = 903k oz of gold.
4) 512mt x 0.72 g/t = 369m g = 13m oz of silver.
The RNS states that copper is $8800, Gold is $1800 and Silver is $24.
5) Therefore 903k ounces of gold is worth 184k tons of copper and 13m oz of silver is worth 1477 tons of copper, which gives us total value equal to 1.1m tons of copper, also known as 'copper equivalent metal'
I remember Colin saying in one of the interviews that we wouldn't need to fully drill it as it doesnt work like that. I hope that is still the case.
Interesting comment from Colin in the Roast podcast: “I’m sure there’s 2Mt there if it were fully drilled out” (or words to that effect).
Taking two numbers provided by the company and multiplying or dividing them is not inventing new numbers - its called maths. If the company says it has 512mt at 0.18% copper, then it is saying there is 922k tons of copper. Which part of that is invented?
Steve 4077, in your earlier post today you stated "922k tons at 0.08% Cu, according to an XTR RNS". Now you appear to have confirmed that that those numbers were not actually in an RNS, only that you have been able to use your maths (which others have questioned) to slice and dice the number to come up with the following "Hence, 922k tons of copper at a 0.08% cut-off".
There is a vast difference between those two statements, like 848,000 tons of Cu. The subtle insertion of "cut-off" and exactly where Cu is used make the world of difference. Maybe the Company is best placed to make all technical announcements and any assumptions.
Great work Jumpstreet…..I concur with your workings. Steve’s calculations indeed appear flawed, so it’ll be interesting to hear his thoughts on the matter (ideally, pretty quickly). I think you owe the board that much, Steve.
Yep
Looks like about 50/50 buys to sells. Maybe more buys slightly. But down 6%
0.5% of shares in issue sold