Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
Is that what we should be saying OSV ??
Gold revenues flowing from our Manica operations. Over 1 million tons of contained copper at Bushranger. An experienced hard working board delivering value for shareholders.
All in all a well executed and measured exploration programme that increased what they set out to increase and identified further potential to be unlocked by an acquirer.
Why would xtract or ‘any’ junior embark on one single £12m+ costing project without a good degree of certainty of a successful outcome.
The importance of doing that 71mt conceptual study cannot be underestimated, it gave the direction that Xtract were recommended to follow.
Proof of the pudding will be how the updated figures stack up of course, however, there is further scope for optimisation to improve further overall value and IRR. It’s not as though they have run out of options. Far from it!
Consider too why AA have kept an interest in BR with the agreement attached when they passed over the baton to xtract to de risk it further.
Somethings cooking
HZ - thanks
We have no way of knowing how much of the resource model there was that AA had ‘identified’ or ever will. This was ‘probably’ uneconomic at the time, I didn’t say it was uneconomic now.
There could have been any number of reasons why AA didn’t carry on. Xtract geologists had learned to understand that the IP and drone mounted EM surveying signatures could be overlayed in a new technique that was suitable with BR mineralogy that helped more accurately target where to drill due to the very subtle differences and being able to compare those differences with the known mineralisation of the original JORC. If AA geos had known years before of this technique things may have been different for them.
Also read theiceberg last blog entry
http://icebergshares.blogspot.com/?m=1
HZ - can't sleep so apologies if l have got this wrong. But basically you are saying that the XTR drill programme proved up what AA had already concluded, ie this is a very low grade resource that is uneconomic to produce at current copper prices. Hence the market is valuing at zero.
No not at all, cB has been very clever in using the 2mt as a carrot, for all we know there could have been 2mt from the JORC, the non JORC ore and from making assumptions of potential ore from the known correlation between iP signatures and actual grades found at RC to make those assumptions on the lower anomoly that became Ascot. It would have given cb enough confidence to make that statement that we have 2mt. It didn’t suggest they had proved up and JORC’d 2mt
My 2mt from rc was more aimed at what it became defined as once Ascot was identified.
Sorry to confuse.
>>There was never going to be 2mt
Are you saying you believe Bird deliberately mislead the market HZ?
The lower cut off is mostly due to increased copper price granted, but drilling has achieved a lot.
The increase and conversion to inferred of the known but unreported low grade 0.1-0.2 peripheral grade ore that didn’t make it into the original and was on the outside of the 71mt JORC would not have been economical at that time to warrant converting. With the increase in the price of, and further projected future price those peripheral grades that now have JORC classification as they have been infilled will now be economic to mine once an initial early Cap pay back phase can be shown to be viable from the high grade central part of the resource.
From the ‘21 conceptual study
>>Optimal believe that the economic recovery and processing of ore with low grades between 0.1 - 0.2% Cu is pivotal for the economic viability of the Racecourse project”
Referring to the known but unreported ore in the resource model that didn’t make it into the JORC at that time.
There was never going to be 2mt at racecourse as xtract would have known from AA’s resource model the expected grades.
Originally 2mt could have been a possibility from RC as one 3+km long open pit ‘before’ it was split down the middle when Ascot was identified and weaker mineralisation separated the two. But didn’t turn out like that once it was drilled.
Gixxer - According to their last podcast they are taking their summer holidays.
>>No roast for two weeks now.
I'd not be surprised if they were being investigated for insider trading. At least from an XTR perspective, they magically seemed to know an RNS was being released before the Market did!
Howezap... what I'm saying is I believe Colin "precisely lowered the cutoff to increase the resource size" !
Howezap... The original resource was 0.3mT. How is 1.3mT x8 the original ?
OK let me ask another way... The original resource was 0.3mT at 0.3 cutoff. What size would that have been increased to if 0.1 cutoff was applied. The original data was and is available. If no further drilling was done (at a cost of £10m) the original resource would not be far short of the current 1.1mT (0.2mT is from Ascot). I suspect we spent £10m on drilling looking for something that was not found and further suspect that the cut off to obtained the new JORC was published to cover the failure of finding whatever it was that Prospect ore convinced Colin was there.
No roast for two weeks now, have kev and Phil done a bunk on a jolly to Margate with all the money they’ve earned from cB and gang
LW you don’t just simply decide to lower the cut off grade to increase the resource size! A many number of factors go toward impacting the cost of mining and toward the lowest economic recoverable grade. The drilling programmes increased the overall resource by x8 and with a copper inventory of 1.3Mt. No not 2mt but was not likely to be, much of the drilling at racecourse was to convert all or most of the original resource that AA identified that didn’t make it into the original 71mt JORC but was in their resource model and that was included in xtracts conceptual study on the 71mt resource, also drilling was to further identify extensions to the mineralised body and infilling to upgrade part of resource to indicated.
Howezap.... What did that £10m cash raise achieve at BR that applying a 0.1% cutoff to the original JORC resource couldn't achieve ? What is the extra value that has been added ?
Does CB have a responsibility to ‘all’ shareholders ?
I would say no, not particularly. Certainly not toward the traders, but genuine investors will have ultimately benefitted yes, that believe in the company growth strategy and that have a longer term outlook and are willing to wait for an outcome for BR.
And have had the fortune to have significantly averaged down as part of any sensible investment strategy supported by improving company fundamentals.
Fully appreciate that this is not what most signed up for, but in this climate they had no choice but to go into semi care and maintenance mode that has also had an effect on share price.
Look at it this way, if an investor believed a £50m market cap was good value over a year ago after doing their research and DD then how much more value has been added since the current asset developments now with a £14m MC?
Well that’s easy LW……. We ‘all’ did, with a reduced amount of dilution than what would have likely seen without the intense PR drive dangly carrot etc. The continuation after that was to again to attempt to keep as high a share price, possibly with intent of driving it up toward the outstanding warrants that could have potentially gained a few million.
There were no guarantees after all that fairbride was going to have a trouble free commissioning as we have seen.
But, after all there was just too much of an economic head wind. I think overall that’s a fair reflection in my opinion of what has transpired.
It does appear now to have reduced that risk of further cash calls considerably. It certainly hasn’t been straight forward.
Howezap... thats the whole point though. Colin felt the need to do something which caused the rerate down. He chose to dangle the 2mt carrot, not because he believed that shareholders would end up with the value of a 2mT resource but because he knew they would be gullible enough to swallow his guff. He believed that dangling of the carrot would pump the SP spiking it to 9p regardless of who got burnt in the process. Honestly tell me who actually benefitted from that "management" ?
That’s a fair one Lucky, took 5+yrs in the end, half that time may have seen non dilutive exploration funding of BR from the offset. And with no financing overhang to have held the share price back since we would certainly not be sitting at £14m market cap. CB would not have needed to dangle the 2mt carrot and set targets that the after effects of have played some part in the rerate down.
Dani too has a fair point in that he hasn’t had an influence in any way toward the development of new plant and it’s commissioning though.
There are way too many ifs and buts to go drown that road, we could go on all day. It is what it is now, but for sure there would have been a far different outcome you can imagine.
Jezzoo - AI chatbox makes sense. Recently seem to get a more " intellectual " type of ramping/deramping on the bulletin boards.
i'll put the subject to bed when i sell my shares and no longer have to read you f=ing ****e
Wrong again Dani!! The full production of manica would have stopped massive dilution, if it was on time.
The market is much less forgiving in general of junior mining companies anyway, between 50-100billion as been wiped off AIM company values since the down turn, most or certainly a vast amount of those companies in AIM that have suffered the most losses those do not have earnings or any other type of incomes to underpin their market caps.
Xtract would have likely seen ‘less’ of a rerating if fairbride plant was at full production 18months before it was.
Not denying there has been an element of disappointment in not reaching some ‘targets’ that were set, but cannot recall any deadlines baz. Those missed targets have been while the company still has plenty of optionality to advance in the best and most economic way forward and ‘not’ that it has come up against a brick wall.