Rainbow Rare Earths Phalaborwa project shaping up to be one of the lowest cost producers globally. Watch the video 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.
What copper price basis?
"Sixteen economic pit shells were modelled from an operating cost perspective which highlighted that the 20Mt pa and 25Mtpa open pit options potentially generate significant operating cash margins dependent upon mining rate, copper price and cut-offgrade."
That para sums it all up.
Complete deception and obfuscation.
(Subtext seems to be, we dont want to give you the actual and current figures that we have as you wont like it)
It’s also a joke that XTR report that kind of statement I mean who cares if the revenue of the pit covers the ops costs, unless CB knows a Good Samaritan to build the plant for free……I get why optimum run these scenarios as part of a screening process but not why XTR feel the need to tell the market.
Are just reiterating what was reported in the interim report, those 16 pit shell scenarios will then show as 16 development options once all other inputs from the resource optimisation are known.
Then the capital costs can be reworked
US$8,000/t, US$9,000/t, US$10,000/t and US$11,000/t were used in the study.
these 4 pricing scenarios were then used at both 20mT and 25mT giving 8 shells.
These 8 shells were then used at 0.1 and 0.15 cutoff giving the final 16 shells.
All were cash flow positive if CAPEX was excluded (i should bloody well hope so).
Some had the potential to be economic if CAPEX applied depending on amongst other variables PRICE.
I conclude that non were economic at the 8 lower priced shells (US$8,000/t, US$9,000/t)
I conclude that the higher priced shells have potential if pre concentration applied successfully (US$11,000/t).
I conclude The US$10,000/t is around breakeven. My conclusion is based on my experience of Bird Speak accompanying the report.
LW
I think that is a fair and accurate summary.
So IF anyone thinks POC is going to be hitting $12K + over next 1 to 3 years (possible much higher) then we do have something that a major will want...eventually.
Problem is its not as CB implied and will take much longer than he stated.
This is more of a "bottom draw" stock now imho rather than "sell or you will lose all your money"
OFC AIMHO.
LW: A concise summary
Andrew : Bottom drawer is a how I see it, it's only a matter of time until it's worth getting the pick and shovels out, we just don't know how much time.
This was my analysis after some calcs I did in Feb using the older Optimal conceptual models from July 21 RNS. Short summary for those who don't want the detail... Seems breakeveb $4.25 /lb $1800 per oz. 9 year life, $1.4bn capex and looking only at higher grade at RC. It's not strong enough hence the Hail Mary shot with ore sorting.
========
I mentioned before I have taken a look at the NPV using the original conceptual mine study assumptions. I have got close to the Optimal NPV model but I have ignored taxation.
I then plugged into the "Optimal" model the values for the higher grade element at Racecourse only. I updated the exchange rate of Oz$ to 0.7 rather than 0.75 in the model. I stuck with 8% discount factor.
It appears from this that the NPV produces a similar value to the conceptual study with a Cu price of $4.25 / lb rather than $5 /lb in the conceptual mine study. I think I have been fairly cautious with increasing both opex and capex by 10% for the greater ore body. I have left life of mine at 9 years. I have treated a small amount of the capital as sustaining so its very front loaded.
Gold is making a bigger contribution to NPV than in conceptual study at gold price of $1800
Clearly this excludes all lower grade ore and also excludes any of the higher grade JORC resource at Ascot as waiting to see updated Optimal work to know if it can be economically joined up.
$4.25 is getting closer to what it needs to get a buyer imho but I think it needs more work to get it lower.
I am sharing this here for discussion as the proper work to inform investment decisions will only come from Optimal and hopefully in the next couple of months.
The spreadsheet is a bit rough and ready, there may of course be errors but hope it gets a bit of constructive input and comments.
Taking a quick look again at the model, theFX rate has helped get the breakeven closer to $4 but that is clearly still too high but it is helpful and gold price assumption could also be increased for further help.
Thanks for putting some numbers on BR. I can now see why people abandoned ship at 5p a share. Personally l would rather Colin just focussed on GLR/AFP and BZT now and let someone else decide what to do next with BR.
Hi Andy
I agree with your analysis on BR, however in fairness think bulk ore sorting is a bit more than a hail mary. That said I have no idea why XTR only stumbled across this as a concept in February other than a delaying tactic due to financial constraints.
the below link gives some nice information on the technology and its potential impact (although is clearly a little bit of a sales pitch)
https://nextore.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/2019-NextOre-Bulk-Ore-Sorting-Whitepaper-ENG_2.pdf
Cheers
James
Flipper56:
Bird`s `focus` on GLR for many years has actually produced nothing that has had a significant, POSITIVE effect on the GLR SP. Over many years too, there has been lots of speculative hype (aka dreaming) that has undoubtedly attracted some investors. However, Bird`s performance as the CEO of most of his ventures has been consistently dreadful - vis a vis major falls in the SP of all of his companies. But, don`t worry folks, its all going to happen `tomorrow` - Er . . . . ???
Ffs Colin, f off will you and let someone who is interested tun the company. Just looked in again and down as usual. Don't knock me for bring frustrated but that hype, it's like getting into an Aston Martin with a top speed of 80!!!
No that’s an Austin Allegro!!!
Why would CB let someone else run this company and take his salary?
How else will his lifestyle be supported?
Colin Bird’s AIM record (as of mid May 23):
Time he became CEO of BZT- SP 0.5….now 0.04 >90% fall
Time he became CEO of XTR- SP 10...now 1.8 >80% fall
Time he became CEO of Galileo 7.38...now 1 >80% fall
During this while- collectively, millions been paid out to CB and fellow directors while PIs are multiples down. Robin Hood in reverse.