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.
To Stevemocal - CB certainly does mix things up from time to time which I agree, is somewhat niggling. My original question to Steve 4077, was where did he get his numbers from?
I am concerned that CB may not be the only person mixing things up.
Look at this, yet hopes still being pinned on them joining up?
7 July 2022
Xtract Resources Plc
("Xtract" or the "Company")
Bushranger Project Assay Results and Drilling Update
The Board of Xtract Resources Plc ("Xtract" or the "Company") is pleased to advise that independent laboratory assays have been received for drill holes BRDD-22-040, BRDD-21-041 & BRDD-22-042 from the Phase 2 diamond drilling programme at the Bushranger copper-gold exploration project.
Highlights
-- Assay results for holes drilled between the Racecourse and Ascot deposits have defined the southern limit of the Racecourse Mineral Resource and the northern margin of Ascot
-- Hole BRDD-22-042 cut a lengthy interval of low-grade copper mineralisation to the south of the Racecourse deposit which is considered to be below viable mining grade and will thus be valuable in defining the southern limit of the conceptual open pit
-- At Ascot, mineralisation in hole BRDD-22-040 returned modest assay grades over a wide interval at relatively shallow depths to the northwest of previous drilling; this latest Ascot hole again shows relative gold enhancement compared to Racecourse
-- Drilling is continuing for now at Ascot to test copper and gold distribution at depth beneath previous drill intersections
-- Two exploratory drillholes completed at the Footrot prospect 7km to the southeast of Racecourse (FTDD-22-001 and FTDD-22-002) encountered weak copper mineralisation along with much disseminated to semi-massive pyrite and pyrrhotite within porphyritic intrusives, providing encouragement that the Bushranger project area contains potential for multiple porphyry copper-gold targets
Colin Bird, Executive Chairman said: "Hole BRDD-22-042 is the most southern hole we've drilled in the Racecourse resource area and, while considerable lengths of mineralisation are present, it is evident that we've reached the southern end of the Racecourse mineral deposit. We will now advance planning to define the conceptual open pit on the back of the drilling results, updated resource modelling and metallurgical test work completed."
Maybe just too many podcasts.
If you stick to what has been officially released in RNS's then it is a very different picture. Nothing has been said even about selling the company or the asset rather.
Freck - It is not CB deliberately being misleading. He interchanges Cu Eq with Cu a bit like he does Bushranger and Racecourse, which are different things too. At the last interview, he also referred to the resource in ounces instead of tons. I find the inaccuracies somewhat niggling but I don't think it is going to change any time soon and I don't think we should read too much into it.
the multiplier effects of being - not to mind a lot - somewhat off on key driver parameterS of any model can be more problematic again re the accuracy of the overall outputs of a model imho
Cela - I don't think it would help for CB to state that in his opinion, this is absolutely economic... although you might argue he did with "the decision to mine is taken!" comment in the previous interview.
He has previously told shareholders (although carefully not in an RNS) that he expected 2mt of cu eq at Racecourse... without Ascot. Given the recent JORC, that brings into question his judgement/honesty. Reassurances from CB are sadly not enough at this stage.
Steve4077. Sir, in an earlier post today you stated the following in response to CB comments "Twice said there was 1.1m tons of copper, when there is actually 922k tons at 0.08% Cu according to the XTR RNS."
I had assumed that CB was referring to the contained total CuEq tons and not just the Cu, but what are you referring to with "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?
Just listened to the podcast and first I do respect Colin but
I carnt help but feel that he’s passing the buck here he wouldn’t commit to saying this is absolutely economical
To mine which is worrieing and he has been in the game long enough to know with the depth and tonnage involved wether this is feasible, exspected a more robust response really .
I didn't find CB's rebuttal quite as outrageous as others. The last two interviews resulted in a complete SP battering so zero market response seems like a result... hopefully this is absolute bottom with zero value for Bushranger at present.
I personally think Steve did a difficult job coming up with a useable model/calculation given the lack of consistent data. I don't agree with his negative NPV conclusion though because I would go with a much low opex (for reasons previously explained) but, as iceberg said, the model is there for everyone to play around with and to challenge his calculations and assumptions... so thanks for that Steve.
On that note, it would be good to hear the views of iceberg and other shareholders with more knowledge and experience. The capex and opex assumptions seem to me to be the weak points in Steve's model (needs a lot more information and data to be much more than guesses) but it would be good to try and form a collective view (or range) and feed that into the model to see what it does to the NPV.
One last thing. I do not think the demonisation of Steve would be complete without an honorary name change. Henceforth, I propose he is know as Steve666. You devil, you.
Just had a listen to the podcast and couldn't believe my ears. Independent experts may have conducted the study and modelling but it is on XTR to word and release the information which seems very misleading if Steve's calculations are correct. There was a lot of complicated stuff in the background but the JORC comparison is maths for 10 year olds and is in the RNSs. Like a lot of the comments on this BB there's a lot of projection, getting up in arms, "how dare he" sort of comments which just seem juvenile and defensive. To read from Steve that they're going to escalate this when I've heard Colin say 1.1 Mt Cu about 10 times in 2 podcasts is just laughable. The previous podcast bears a listen if you want to hear how impartial Colin is "just waiting for the experts". Just barmy behaviour.
Well CB's comments have not reversed the damage done. I have no issue with what Steve wrote and CB said little to dispute any of the content. We all understand Steve doesn't have all the data to accurately model the economics, but sometimes a "back of a *** packet" approach can be good enough. CB saying "even I don't know at this point whether it is economic of not" is hardly comforting. Plus like I said earlier, talking about the area between RC and Ascot is desperately clutching at straws. He has already said previously that it was clear don't join up following the disappointing assay results. Does anybody really think this area will be further explored by XTR?
Agree with ART, let the managment run the company.
Like CB says let's wait for the paid independent experts to FORMALISE the official report.
I'm done reading guesswork and fairytale... back in a month or so. Have fun. ?? bye.
And the other trouble here is that this board has been full of know-it-all posters who long ago decided that they are far better at running this company than the management. They got it into their heads that this was all going to be sold, even before it had even been drilled properly, and even kept giving the share price at which it would be sold. They didn't want XTR to raise any more cash to continue drilling, even though that is the way every other company goes about their business. And now they have decided that the whole asset is uncommercial and no doubt valueless. It is quite farcical.
Let the management run the company.
Then perhaps he wants to get a major or mini-major involved to farm-in and to pay for some further drilling to properly JORC up the whole prospect. By rights, this is what XTR should have done all along rather than do it themselves but the confusion was caused by the AA clause.
I think that it is obvious that the trouble here is Anglo-American and that quite ridiculous buy-back in clause that they left open to the previous holders.
Mr Bird wants to offer this back to them - with a shortfall from the 2 Mton target and make sure that they say 'No. its not for them'.
Then perhaps he wants to get a major or mini-major involved to pay for some further drilling to properly
Fair points in that last post Iceberg.... but me having come across David Lenigas around UKO&G and indeed an O&G'er that bore his name - which eventually became columbus and indeed then BPC - I don't think CB is as bad as him by a good distance. That said CB has plenty of flaws, no doubt .... but Commodity explorers on AIM - metals or O&G - are the Wildest Wild West of AIM .. and AIM itself is plenty Wild West generally.. and if you go looking for a x hundred per cent returns then the potential downsides can, by definition, be huge too ..
@theiceberg If you are looking at the numbers, please check the JORC calculations too. I think that is a lot more important at this stage than the NPV models. Bear in mind that the new JORC uses CuEq cut-off and the old one is using Cu cut-off. The best comparison is from the 0.15% cut-off version of the original JORC in the conceptual study RNS from July 26th 2021.
" I will post a bit later in the next 24 hrs or so as to why I think Steve’s work is a little wrong."
Please do. I would be interested in your thoughts Iceberg
The fact that you both see some of this differently, shows that no one really knows. Apart from the independent experts with all their skill sets, data and resources.
Its more complicated and nuanced than a maths question.
Investing100,
The point, imo is that he’s put everything out there, precisely so that people can do what they want with it. They can change the capex, opex etc and anybody who reads these forums can do that and say why they come up with.
I think the capex sounds way too high imo. I will post a bit later in the next 24 hrs or so as to why I think Steve’s work is a little wrong.
Ntm the issue is Colin saying that people who have sold shouldn’t be critical. Everybody-anybody can have a say. The issue is whether what they say is true or not. If they provide sound reasoning then I welcome criticism and Colin should to.
There is also the bigger issue that Colin has surrounded himself and xtr with yes men. There is no IOD. No real nomad or broker questioning. No presentations for people to question his reasoning. There is nothing. If he thinks he can or should comment on anybody questioning him on a public BB, he’s acting in a way which stifles his position ie a dictator.
The other famous aim charecter that did this was David Lenigas, who tbh belong in jail.
I would take your comments more seriously Dibs if it wasn't for the fact that your virtue signalling suits your previous negative opinion of CB.
We will have to wait a while before we see just how miffed XTR are about this attack on their company.
I say attack because taking everything into consideration that's what it amounts to.
CB is a master of bluster but he got one thing right, until the study has been completed NOBODY can really say what the figures are as nobody knows all the facts. For somebody to sell out and then post a lengthy negative "paper" about the company is more to the point rather than whether the content is accurate or not.
''Just imo, but for a chairman to talk like that is outrageous. He needs to step down and help with a succession plan for a ceo.''
You might want him to step down for other reasons Iceberg, but to say the contents of that Interview is a reason for him to step down is totally beyond my comprehension. Altogether, those two posts of yours are well over the top imho.. but you are of course entitled to your opinion...as am I ... and you have had excellent knowledge on the detail of drilling porphories, without a shadow of a doubt.. and I'm very thankful for your high quality posting here around such.
I'll make this one short post in response. I'm going to restrict myself to replying to questions from now on as I have made my case and don't want to spam the board.
There was not even a single attempt to answer any of the specific points raised in my doc with actual numbers. Instead: "We don't know - its all in independent hands to tell us if we actually have anything". Very different than previous statements. I think that is an pretty strong acknowledgement that previous positive statements were not based on knowledge - because they are waiting for an independent source to tell them its economic.
No acceptance that JORCs should be compared like for like to inform investors about added tonnage, or even acknowledgement of that main point. Twice said there was 1.1m tons of copper, when there is actually 922k tons at 0.08% Cu according to the XTR RNS.
Colin only talked about independent modelling, which is irrelevant if they only have about 10%-15% more copper than the original JORC at the same cut-off. Also I don't need access to any modelling data to state the JORC is completely misrepresented. Its all in the published RNS and that is the massive underlying problem that he completely ignored - ask yourself why?
I though the 'knock on the door' comment was unprofessional. Also, my comments on telegram have now been been deleted and Kevin Hornsby is saying "This will probably be escalated by XTR". Can't debate the facts, so just try to bully the messenger. That escalation should be interesting though, especially if they have to refute the data or we start analyzing everything Colin has said publicly.
In the meantime I am still holding a nominal amount of shares at just over 5p, having sold most when I realised that this was going to drag on for some time.
I think the problem many have here is that they bought far too many shares and expected far too much far too quickly. These big porphyry projects take time to be drilled and explored properly. Personally, I will be disappointed if XTR do not drill more - Ascot, the bit in between Racecourse and Ascot and any other interesting prospects.
Both Iceberg and Dibs have lost me there: I respectfully diagree with the perspectives they have on that Interview.
CB is saying that the Independent experts will do their work and best wait til after that is published to do good quality analysis and reach conclusions as to the value of Bushranger etc, which is exactly what he should say imho.
That's not to say Steve is not entitled to his opinon but Steve's opinion can of course turn out to be wrong too ..eg if one varible that's a key driver in the overall analysis is decently off - eg Opex has been talked about by Steve M and others- then the effect of that may easily mean that his conclusions could be plenty wrong indeed.
That was all a bit long-winded. In a nutshell, in a couple of years I can easily see this being 20p/25p and even 30p.
What's the rush.