The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
Yes
Could it be a perfect storm brewing?
It is clear from the objectives from the phase 2 programme that there must be a great deal of importance placed on highlighting and understanding the multi porphyry potential of the system. Generally we know that exploration follows a certain path or pattern toward building the resource to get to the next key decision or data point and so on.
So this now, is as big a decision point than any, with in particular, the outcome of the mining study. Toward what is, the most important thing for the company. Triggering the buy back to see what they want to do.
Desperately need for that to happen first. Beyond that, what really is going to happen next?
One thing is clear, in one respect, they will certainly not be out of options to expand on the resource with the current geological knowledge against the back drop of governments across the globe that are legislating the ‘need’ to decarbonise and reach net zero. It ain’t going away!!
Not had one of these for a few days:)
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/glencore-says-this-time-is-different-for-coming-copper-shortage-1.1855549
Medium or Long term it may not matter what the economic model shows.
Just wait and hold and the rising POC will ensure many majors will want to bid for 1.1mt+ Cu
IMO the only real unknown is the time factor before lift-off.....6 months, 12 months or 18 months?
As i understand it the importance of racecourse is not just the amount of copper in the mine but its signifying the first part of a porphyry district that could envelope the other prospects on the license.
To elaborate on what I meant by this
>>>It is a a lot easier and cheaper to process the higher grade at a higher economic cut off. As more of the lower grades are now included in the updated JORC, the economic cut off will come down.<
As is shown in the high grade crown of the resource, the 191Mt @ 0.33% CuEq, is reported at a cut-off of 0.2% CuEq. Whereas the overall resource of 512Mt @ 0.22% CuEq*, is reported at a cut-off of 0.1% CuEq.
Cut-off grade depends, upon the processing method used to achieve the best economic productivity. It is cheaper to process higher grades than lower. For example, Milling, which is the cheapest, crushed or agitation leach, and run of mine (ROM) leach. I found that the lowest cut-off grade for milling is 0.18% copper equivalent, for crushed leach 0.12% and for ROM leach 0.05%.
This is so simplistic there are many other factors including dilution of head grade that goes for processing that can affect the cut off too.
The fact is, if anyone bought or sold this, or any other, share on the strength of what someone wrote on this bulletin board then they might as well have just put their money on Sad Ken in the 3:30 at Chepstow on the basis that Dave in the pub said it was a dead cert.
Terrific article, many thanks for the link. Pages 19 - 21 are copper-specific. “We are approaching a dangerous situation in global copper markets—similar to the crisis back at the end of 2005, where copper surged by almost 175% in just six short months.” And also: “ we believe India today is where China was back in 1999-2000, just before China’s copper demand surged. Based upon our copper models……… we have outlined how a massive acceleration in India’s copper consumption should occur this decade.”
Forgot to attach :
https://4043042.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/4043042/Content%20Offers/2022.Q3%20Commentary/2022.Q3%20GR%20Market%20Commentary.pdf
Prickly
In the 'same boat' as you (plus JLP) so a long term Colin Groupie. The pick up in Copper and Gold is on the horizon with a falling USD, Overseas investors may bale out into tangible assets like gold and copper.
Read an interesting Commodity Review over the weekend. Looking good, page 13 for gold and page 19 for copper.
All recent interviews were followed by significant SP drops. Communicating through song until the real RNS worthy news is ready, suits me!
Boosting investor confidence through the medium of song! What next? Maiden mineral Resource reporting of ascot, with a poetic verse and a final evaluation of the economic model summed up with a philosophical quote from Friedrich Nietzsche.
Might just work
re. To be fair... that was the most confidence boosting message I've heard from Colin in the last year! Expecting a positive market reaction tomorrow. ;)
I would have been more hopeful if the tune had been sent via an RNS.
I used to have a fair chunk of XTR shares (approx 1m) but sold out a short time ago before the fateful RNS as I needed the cash elsewhere. Fortuitous and not for any premonition or worry about the company's performance. Like everyone else I was dismayed how short of our target/threshold of 2mt we ended up but I think at 1.1-1.3mt and with $5M usd from Manica projected i think this has been oversold and am happy to be back in again at the current SP. I am also in BZT GLR and African Pioneer. So a bit of a Colin Groupie but mainly a copper fan.
as long as he has not left the table and bought a one way ticket to switzerland
I have no doubt that song was presented with a positive view. There is no way that CB would have suggested it as a negative point. What CEO would do that via a record. I think Steve you are rather hopeful of putting this thought in shareholders minds. For what reason i leave each individual to make up their own minds. You have made your point and so has iceberg( all valid ), Perhaps it has run it's course and you should allow everyone to make their own minds up on how they want to play their hands.
At the evening presentation CB gave to shareholders a year ago, he said that these projects are not usually that capex sensitive, but they are very opex sensitive.
CB said its difference between "night and day" with a small change in Opex.
Steve - Whether it is new or old rock is something of a moot point. What matters is whether it is economical to dig up. To that end, we need to first understand the value of the Cu Eq that can be extracted, and I would agree that you've been able to make a reasonable estimate of this using data reported by XTR. However, we then need to know the capex and the opex and this is where you calculations have to rely on on some rather unsophisticated assumptions.
My main issue is with your opex estimate. You assume there is a correlation between opex and the amount of ore i.e. a pro-rata doubling of opex due to there being twice as much ore. Why? Firstly, as you point out, nearly all the new ore is 'the same rock', which means it was waste rock that had to come out of the pit anyway and the cost of getting it out is therefore already accounted for. Secondly, the cost of processing ore (as opposed to dumping waste) is only a small part of the total opex - see link below to a presentation I found that gives some insight into opex costs. Personally, I think you have significantly overstated the opex and I don't see how you could have any statistical confidence in the numbers you have used and therefore the conclusion you have reached.
https://dxi97tvbmhbca.cloudfront.net/upload/user/image/GPoxleitner_OperatingCostEstimationForMiners_201620191128185443446.pdf
I would also question your interpretation of any hidden message in CB's song selection!
A very plausible sounding synopsis joeman which have noted so thank you
Howezap... I believe 8% might be the figure you can reverse calculate once the economics have been bottomed out, when you have a project with amazing economics and low CAPEX and risk and therefore an NPV calculated compared to the resource in ground is extremely attractive.... and the low risk means that the purchaser will pay a high % of NPV to secure the project.
When using in-ground resource value as the basis for estimating a sale price then it seems foolhardy to use a % that would be attributed to only the best opportunities that anyone is liable to find.
In particular for Bushranger our positives are jurisdiction, access to utilities and distance from large population centres.... but we know at the least that the high CAPEX represents a risk and any sensible investor will recognise the risk associated with being likely tied to a relatively high (although widely predicted) copper price.
I dont think 8% should even be mentioned at this stage .... im pointing out its overly rampy.
>>It is important to recognize that the cutoff grade is not simply calculated to a definitive answer. It is in fact a strategic variable that has major implications on mine design. The cutoff grade is adapted as the economic environment changes with regard to metal prices and mining costs, and is therefore constantly changing.
Hi Steve hope you are good mate, I doubt you are deliberately misinterpreting icebergs analysis. So are you just trying too hard now and your judgement is being clouded by your desire to be proved right.
The 71mt JORC has a 0.3 cut off simply because the average grade is a lot higher due it being the central higher grade part of the overall resource. It is a a lot easier and cheaper to process the higher grade at a higher economic cut off. As more of the lower grades are now included in the updated JORC, the economic cut off will come down.
?Iceberg >>Just to make it completely clear the unclassified resource is the resource model which was of insufficient information to be included in the JORC.
We are back to swings and roundabouts again I think until the economic model is out.
>> Digest the lyrics in their entirety
"Son, I've made a life by reading people's face and knowing what their cards were, by the way they held their eyes, so if you don't mind me saying, I can see you're out of aces. For a taste of your whisky, I'll give you some advice"
Guess what that advice might be.
Steve4077, I beg to differ re your observation on your karaoke song. Digest the lyrics in their entirety, then fully consider the context in which this particular song has made an appearance. The choice of The Gambler is a perfect riposte, and most certainly is not a call for shareholders to leave the table!
>> The ore that is not included in the JORC resource , that makes up the resource model is ‘not’ just the low grade below the cut off grade
Yes, that was the expected response :)
If that was actually true, the new JORC would not have had to drop the cut-off from 0.3% to 0.1% to incorporate the old resource model. It was self-evidently much lower grade ore that was added to the JORC, not new ore at similar grades.
Steve>> What XTR have done is take the ore that was not good enough to get into the old JORC with a 0.3% cut-off, but apparently is good enough to get into the new one with a 0.1% cut-off.<<
The ore that is not included in the JORC resource , that makes up the resource model is ‘not’ just the low grade below the cut off grade. It is the resource that has not been drilled sufficiently enough to have the necessary degree of confidence, and is made up of a whole range of grades.
?