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.
>> 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.
I am sure if Colin and the board thought the share price was going to fall they would not have issued over 5 million shares at 3.23 in lieu of salaries three weeks but waited until now and received 35 % more shares !
I am sure they are shocked as much as anyone about the share crash
I find it extremely difficult to imagine that Jeremy read and quinton Mills (spelling may be wrong) have spent the last two years of their lives/professional careers to come back with a resource that is the same as before but they have lowered the cut off!!!!
Does that not sound insane?
Steve was an investor in XTR until last week.
And typically a good contributor to any discussions.
I see Steve has made over 2000 posts all of which relate to XTR and seems obsessed with the company and not even a shareholder so seems odd to me !
I was looking to get into XTR and the drop gave me a good opportunity, but I didn't pending checking why the drop happened and then checking Steve4077's posts. 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%. Also, I don't know anything about mining and didn't check any of the numbers that fed into those conclusions. Given how many deductions had to be made to reach the resource conclusion I wonder if there are some specifics that lead to there being some invalid calculation in the background. Not sure for now so didn't dip my toe in just yet.
>> I'm not well disposed to debating with you but I'll just point out that you're wrong. The original 71Mt JORC'd resource was a net (after recoveries) 410kt of copper plus 229k ozs of gold - read Scenario 10 in the July 2021 RNS.
Yes, that is the scenario I referenced in my doc. Except it wasn't based on the 71mt at 0.3% cu cut-off. It was based on 162mt at 0.15% cut-off. Just read the RNS.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/bushranger-conceptual-open-pit-mining-study-c05hq78ws9qagfq.html
The recent RNS referenced 191mt, an increase of less than 30mt and only 45k tons more copper, with 0.20 CuEQ (not Cu). The Cu cut-off for that resource is about 0.162% once you remove the gold equivalent. It's effectively the same resource from the conceptual study last year with about 10% more copper. It was just presented in a way that disguised that.
The worst case in my mind is Bushranger has semi decent on sale value whatever as an exploration resource with ok already proven up copper - and gold - alongside decent potential to prove up meaningfully more copper - and gold - via further drilling campaign(s) too...and Africa gold on top of that adds a fair few 10's of more millions of share price value here too.. so a market cap of twenty million gbp ish is just too low whatever imho..
I note, with no little amount of amusement, that all the people aiming snarkey remarks at Steve4077 (who incidentally is doing you all a favour by challenging the CB spin and BS) have NO answer. If you disagree go and do the maths yourself and prove him wrong instead of trying to besmirch him and whine. It’s no good saying oh I’ll just wait for figures from this company. You are going to be waiting a long time and by then the SP will be 1p not 2.
“Why would Colin keep being positive about it if he knows he’ll be proved wrong in a couple of months”.
Maybe because he was hoping to get a placing off to set the next big thing in motion before Bushranger gets sidelined?
Steve has rightfully spoiled the party (and I am a shareholder).
Steve - The pdf map you linked to to evidence that the new JORC covers a much larger area is just another example of inconsistent/missing information that makes it impossible to assess the viability of a mine using the data we have.
Have another look at the most recent map and compare it to the one released at the end of phase 2 - links below. On the most recent map it looks like the new resource area is much larger but only because they have changed the size and shape of the inferred mineral resource (2018) area, which now appears smaller. Put the maps side by side and the new resource area is actually almost identical to the old one. Does that mean that we have 1.1mt of Cu Eq sitting in the same size conceptual pit? That would be great but I think it would be a dangerous assumption! Perhaps even Xtract don't know until the new modelling comes back. There are just too many unknowns.
This is why I was so dismayed when they released the new JORC without the modelling to confirm it has bankable value. They should have known that announcing a new resource estimate much lower than CB had led us to believe, would result in investors inevitably questioning CB's judgement/honesty re the viability of a mine too. And, boy, has the SP taken a kick-in because of it.
Steve, I completely agree that we need XTR to provide a side-by-side comparison of the new vs original JORC using the same parameters in both cases and to do so asap. And CB needs to wheel out the Oz team to present because I think there is still a lot of trust in them. What a mess.
Latest map: https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/2677H_1-2022-11-22.pdf
Old map (end Phase 2): https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/9166U_1-2022-8-4.pdf
You are forgetting Manica !. Personally I think the value of RC had been discounted months ago. I had always hoped Ascot would save the day but maybe not.
I'm not well disposed to debating with you but I'll just point out that you're wrong. The original 71Mt JORC'd resource was a net (after recoveries) 410kt of copper plus 229k ozs of gold - read Scenario 10 in the July 2021 RNS. That equates to about 450kt of "copper-equivalent" using the appropriate metal prices. The recent RNS described 191Mt at 0.33%, which is 0.63Mt before recoveries, or 544kt after. That's an increase of c0.1Mt of copper (equivalent) with a sale value of >$1.0bn.
With no acknowledgement from Colin from todays events it certainly looks like a drop into the 1,s is on the cards for tommorow unless he steadies the ship with one first thing tommorow , let’s hope so
Certainly looks like a game changing process for extracting more copper. Deals are being done by the big players with junior miners too!
Plenty of attacking the messenger today, rather than just checking the numbers. Every single criticism is about open pit modelling, or something similar. As I have said here and on Telegram, that is just a side-issue. The real problem is that the drilling didn't add much in the way of extra tonnage. It doesn't matter how good the modeling is if we don't have enough extra ore to change the conclusions of the XTR conceptual study. No one has pointed out any flaws in the JORC comparison, which the real underlying problem.
In fact, I am going to point out a flaw I found earlier while answering a question on Telegram. The new JORC is based on a 'copper equivalent grade' cut-off, not a copper grade cut-off like the original JORC. As about 18% of the 'copper equivalent grade' is provided by the gold, that makes the new JORC considerably worse than even I thought. For example, the 1.1m tons of 'copper equivalent metal' at a 'copper equivalent grade' of 0.22% with a 0.1% 'copper equivalent cut-off' is actually about a 0.082% copper cut-off supported by 0.05 g/t gold.
The comparison I did with the old and new JORC at 0.15% Cu was therefore flawed, because the new JORC is actually using not much more than 0.12% Cu cut-off and hoping no one will notice the Eq. In fact, the 0.2% CuEq cut-off in the new JORC (about 0.162% Cu) is the closest comparison to the 0.15% original JORC.
Original JORC was 470k tons of copper graded 0.29% from 162mt at 0.15% cu cut-off. Its now 515k tons of copper at 0.27% from 191mt at 0.162% cu cut-off. If they look similar, its because they are. From these numbers it looks like the entire drilling campaign added only a small amount to the deposit.
If this all sounds like fantasy, then consider how it has been presented.
A) 0.30% copper cut-off using contained copper tonnage, with copper and gold grades listed separately
B) 0.1% copper equivalent cut-off (really 0.08% cu), using contained 'copper equivalent' tonnage and using 'copper equivalent' grade.
Its pretty much the same deposit with only minor additions presented in two completely different ways.
Now you can attack the messenger, or you can prove me wrong by explaining the flaws in those numbers (which are straight out of the RNS - no mining skills needed, just basic math), or maybe the best option would be to ask XTR to provide a side-by-side comparison of the new vs original JORC using the same parameters in both cases. That would end the debate immediately and should be easy to provide.
I would guess a - primary even - motivation is those analysis posts by Steve is venting anger/annoyance at CB for what he/many others might say was poor verbal guidance here.
That's somewhat understandable in my mind... CB has 'over promised' previously in my experience, and this might even end up at the top of the list of his over promising, but it's still just far too early to tell imho.
Also, Steve's free to post as he sees fit unless/until site administrators here stop him too, granted.
But I think there may easily be plenty of assumptions in Steve's analysis that if assumed differently could both individually and especially collectively result in different conclusions.. and waiting for independent expert analysis is almost always the best way to go imho.
And the recovery methods are improving all the time
https://fortune.com/2022/11/27/mining-industry-startup-jetti-resources-solution-copper-problem-shortage-bhp-freeport/
IWTO
Very well written post & could not agree anymore. Sure there are a few others, if not more who do as well.
and while I'm at it... how about an update on Eureka. That had better be a goer...
And we absolutely do not need any more MozGold style deals or Kalengwa distractions.
IWTO - well done. you have put into words what I have been thinking and trying to express all day.
Steve's presentation was very smart and sick, which gave it added credibility. It was positively dangerous and had no right of reply prior to its unleashing and was snapped up by nervous investors looking for what they saw as a credible source.
I've seen no hint of acceptance of any responsibility for causing a needless reaction and, as you say, Steve's ok, he waited to sell before posting and trashing the SP.
johnswan.... this is an area I wasnt happy about... the contradiction in Colin saying he wishes Ascot loins up but implying he didnt want to spend more on unjoined deposits. I just dont know what to think regarding Ascot and it is exactly the sort of confusion that I feel Colin creates. Intentionally or unintentionally I dont know but he has to realise it does the SP no good and that bothers me as it is only through a higher SP that we will enjoy shareholder value in the real world. I'm not interested in our geologists getting excited over something that wont lift the SP at the end of the day.
We all know CB exaggerates, but why would he say the things in the last two interviews knowing that in a couple of months the truth will be known and its a complete disaster? He knows there is no spinning the independent report
He maybe a lot of things but he's not a complete idiot and to release the economic study with a required POC of say, $11K would surely see his rep in tatters and he would be finished. Even he knows he couldnt spin that away.
He said, that 10 years ago we may need to park this, so he is implying we wont need to that now so therefore hes saying it is economic and has value.
I guess we'll find out if I am naive and if CB is stupid in next 2 months....
How have we gone from Ascot and RC don't join up to maybe they join up? The area between RC and Ascot was tested, and there was nothing there. As for Ascot, I don't see how they can even put a resource number on it given they have one hole that looked great while everything else disappointed. Did they just manage to hit the very best of a tiny deposit on first drill or have they been extremely unlucky in that none of the holes surrounding the discovery showed much of interest?