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.
Matt
Operating costs across year 21 and 22 included £1.47m in ‘21 and £0.25m in ‘22, for those share options granted to employees and consultants. Also included were the costs impaired for Kalengwa @ £.32m in ‘21 and £.98m from eureka in ‘22.
‘23 should see an improved balance sheet with Q1 audited results to follow shortly and within next 6 months the full updated conceptual feasibility study at BR.
The real positive pointed out by Andrew is they announced they don’t see the need of further placement to advance current projects.
Clearly Colin has not been able to resist making those "hasty decisions to acquire new inferior projects". Too many have benefitted from those deals whilst shareholders have paid the price.
It looks clear now that delivering shareholder value is very low on his priority list.
The appointment of a new CEO could be worth a penny here IMHO
Btw, I should have added at the end ....
that's the added value CB has contributed to this share over the years !
SP is at a discount imho due to the CB factor
I can sell 750K.
There has not, so far, been a wall of selling and many could if they wanted to now (couldnt sell early doors).
With sentiment so low and all the lack of news and indeed much disappointing news, it COULD be that we are at or near the bottom???
We had an official offer (in an RNS) for FB 4 years ago at a higher value than the current MC - and that was before there was a working mine at FB and we had any profit. POG was much lower then as well
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
I don't think it will be until August at least IMHO
Is Up Very North Scotland ?
I'm going Oop North today but only as far as God Own Country.
I had to sell to buy myself 6 pen'arth o' chips when I get there.
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.
I think it's 17 weeks if it's a leap year Dani.
Can you check if it's leap year for me
Wink le
Interesting not intersecting...but then again if it gets very heated???
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.
AGM should be intersecting:)
CB's usual tactics of distracting and smoke and mirrors wont work now and he is going to have to deliver something pre AGM to avoid a very very hard time.
His usual distracting tactics have worked well, and this sketch sums them up what he was doing to all of us for many years !
Good luck at the AGM CB!
https://youtu.be/QX0r6DsvXAU
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jeezuus Ma
WTF was that post about ?
Do you get it direct from the cartels ?
Even Dr Spock would be confused with that one.....
Then the capital costs can be reworked
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.
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.
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)
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."
A decision to mine.
Was that a repost from nov last year joey 🐗
Thought it was Groundhog Day
Keep up.
Seible I think you are correct.
I think the segmented analysis putting the entire 283k tax on Moz has made it unclear and given the explanation in note 12 I don't understand why it all shows against Moz..