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.
Kevin Hornsby - sunday roast guy has just said podcast is incoming!
Telegram
Notice of Roast podcast "imminent" on Telegraph.
Steve - I still think it is the opex figure that is the problem with your calculation. Opex is all the operating costs and not just the cost of extracting and processing ore. Your assumption that a doubling of ore will mean a doubling of the opex is too simplistic and cannot be correct.
For starters, the opex figure used in the conceptual open pit study will have included the cost of removing and dumping waste dirt (to get at the ore) from the pit. If you reclassify waste dirt within the boundaries of the pit as ore (because you lower the cut-off used in the original JORC or find new ore), then the cost of removing it for dumping (already accounted for in the opex) needs to be subtracted from the new cost of removing it for processing. So to calculate the new opex you need to know how much 'new' ore sits outside of the conceptual pit (if any), what it will cost to extend the pit to capture ore currently outside of it (if needed), and the cost difference between the processing and dumping of dirt. And there will be countless other variables that neither of us know about or understand because we are not mining experts. Neither of us have the info/data/experience to recalculate the opex and the assumption you have made to try and plug this knowledge gap is not sound. TBH I think you'd actually be closer to the mark assuming no additional opex rather than a doubling of it. But now I'm guessing. We simply won't know until the new modelling study is back.
yikes
that's desperate advice
the past is the past...given what we now know is this worth 2p???
Only way out here is to average down if you have the minerals..
I expect the bears might find a way of seeing 2 to 2.5p a share as a fair value for FairBride 'ard rock - and sundry other Africa Assets - at this moment in time, Docit.. (Towards balance, bulls might find a way of seeing 5p a share as fair value granted.. but sentiment is strongly against the bulls here at this moment in time, clearly.)
Beyond just saying the large s/p fall is an overreaction; I've decided to explain the current s/p to myself as follows: The market is currently not just pricing Bushranger as zero value to xtr.l.. but alongside that, the market is also pricing further spend on Ascot/ Footrot etc drilling by xtr.l within Bushranger in 2023 - funded from African Gold revenue - with the outcome being that Bushranger is still worth zero value to xtr.l at the end of that.
Agreed.
To illustrate, we were about to sell Manica 6 years ago and had a price agreed of $17.5M
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/disposal-of-manica-gold-project-for-us175m-e2l0lbeow2nube4.html
That's about 1.7p at current total shares in issue
Moreover that was before he had any income from manica alluvials and no new hard rock mine producing income there.
If we write off all of Bushranger (which is obviously silly to do) we must be at 3p as a conservative fair value estimate
If we were to totally disregard Bushranger for the minute then what do we have.
Gold production which is entering into full swing by December as confirmed by Both parties in partnership.
That alone has got to value our share price in excess of 3p
Therefore at it's current value we can expect 30%-40% increase in share price as a no brainer. Makes this price level a very good buying opportunity does it not.
Did seem like an orchestrated message board to wreck the share price and with such large volume the market makers must have had a great day yesterday
Today hardly any volume so make what you want of it
the mm's books just gone neutral.....maybe 2.12,is the bottom.
near az dammit
Thanks Lucky
Also, we have a positive NPV on the original jorc and 30% of that is still more than our MCAP.
Buzzy lizzy, that's for processing ore. There is waste rock above to be blasted and removed.
It's not something we can really work out without all the data. You can speculate but really it's not worth it.
nothing posted on bulletin boards makes a difference to a company's SP.
They should be referred to XTR's "Black Monday" event.
And smartypants cryptic posters?
love how f a g has been replaced with *** ??
OK, complete back of *** packet numbers but how about just look at the RC open pit numbers, nothing else? The open pit part of RC appears to have approx 0.5MT of copper within 192MT of ore. The revenue is $4Bn at current prices, I have seen a Capex estimate of $1Bn for the whole capex including any required for the deeper mining after the open pit phase. So open pit capex must be less, surely? Then I have also seen quoted on LSE a processing opex figure of $10/ton of ore, so that is approx. another $2Bn of cost. Does that mean there is $1Bn plus profit potential in the open pit? Are there other costs missing here? Ok NPV will be say half that and any buyer would only pay for say a 3rd of the NPV. But that would still be significant dollars and many multiples above current SP. If you bundle in all licences with the sale giving potential big upside to a buyer, then seems like a decent chance of getting this over the line. Totally unsure on the opex cost per ton figure. Just what I have seen here. Anybody have a view on that. Obviously this will all be guess work until we see the RC model and open pit study
Nobody has shown it isn't economical (and the most recent interview Colin says they already know they have Decision to Mine). What has been demonstrated is that a proportion of the resource isn't due to the outcomes of the drilling but due to the shifted cut-off.
The only way forward for Xtract is the direction they are going..... publish the mining plan when they receive it and start the negotiation with AA ir wider market.
The only deviation (imo) that this discussion warrants would be a technical presentation with the team...... thats if they want to address the shareprice being below current asset value.... as that dip has been related to Bushranger and more specifically, non expert interpretation of Racecourse results published to date.
To quote Yazz...... the only way is up baby
Baaaaaa
So what do people now think XTR's options are re Bushranger? 1) Dump the whole thing because it's not economical and focus on the African assets? 2) Why is CB talking about their decision to mine? How realistic is this for a company like XTR?
Im confused with this unespected dump im down 56%
From Steve’s own post.
RE: Cheery post.
23 Oct 2022 15:43
>>I was at the AGM. Colin stated something to the effect that he wanted AA to say no, so we could go to the wider market, and AA would have 30 days to decide once we stated the 'decision to mine'.<<
Bewildered and somewhat dumbfounded that with the amount of drilling to RC has come up this short.
Could we be seeing a bit of resource manipulation?
I see, thanks. Yes all the CuEq / cut-off changing did my head in, which is why I tried but ended up not verifying your prior calculations. In any case I think all this goalpost changing by releasing incomparable numbers by CB does smell a bit fishy, and at the very least, if the new CuEq is a better metric (which it probably is), rerelease the old results but updated to account for this change in calculations.
I don't know enough about this company but I was also a bit concerned listening to the recent Sunday Roast podcast with how frustrated CB seemed to get and his insistence that XTR missing their target of 2 Mt was immaterial because they specified 2 Mt or mineable, and they are definitely going to mine it which means people should be happy (around 8:30). I also don't like how he was so laser focused on the 1.1 Mt Cu when it turns out this was CuEq and was actually under 1 Mt of Cu. It sounds nitpicky but 1 Mt seems like a big milestone and they are desperate to be classed above that and not to miss it by a hair. XTR have a lot of other resources which seem quite promising though, the Zambia mines and Ascot and such. So perhaps even if Racecourse isn't all it's made out to be there is still significant value in this share.
>> I ran his numbers (the basic ones on old and new JORC) and found the numbers check out on the 0.135 Cu%. I don't really understand how that could be included since the scenario had cut-off of 0.15%.
Yes, that had me stumped for a while. The answer is that the new JORC uses a CuEq cut-off, not Cu. Given the Gold is about 18% of the CuEq, that means the actual cut-off was about 0.123%, which explains why the addition was below 0.15% Cu. A fairer comparison is the new 0.2% CuEq cut-off, which is about a 0.162% Cu cut-off and compare that to the original 0.15% Cu cut-off. However, that makes things considerably worse than my original post.