Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. 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.
Was meant to include this bit from last study in my last post
>>Open pit modelling was carried out using the currently defined JORC (2012) compliant Inferred Resource of 71Mt @ 0.44% Cu and 0.064 g/t Au at a cut-off of 0.3% Cu, as well as additional unclassified resources at the Racecourse prospect
The difference in this case was the date estimation was in an RNS, not an interview.
*death not dead
I'm sorry, I have to laugh. Several people saying words along the lines 'not long to wait'. I remember my prediction of good news and a re-rate in about September .That was September 2021 by the way. We can only hope. One day the words 'soon/imminent/not long now/etc' will turn out to be right. But just because Colin said late Oct/Early November means diddly-squat. He has said a lot of things. Won't be a dead of a thousand cuts. Was it six weeks he said more than six months ago. I am fairly confident it will happen and we will get a really decent re-rate... but I am now much less certain when. September 2023 anyone? Ha Ha perhaps I should just say Serptember and leave others to fill in the year!
I agree with Cygnus.
The last modelling of the conceptual open pit used the existing JORC and didn’t include anything found by the XTR drilling. All the XTR finds should now be built into the modelling and a new JORC estimate issued. Hopefully not too long to wait now.
I’d really like some gold rich assays from Footrot RNS’ed first to give the SP a kick!
A revised open pit model will need to be carried out using the updated JORC for Racecourse. Below is taken from conceptual study RNS back in July ‘21
>>The preliminary conceptual open pit optimisation mining study ("Conceptual Study") was completed by independent consultant, Optimal Mining Solutions (Pty) Ltd of Australia ("Optimal"). Where appropriate, other independent consultants were used, including Cartledge Mining and Geotechnics together with Lycopodium (mineral processing experts).<<
The pit design will be carried out at this stage too.
Is likely both RC and Ascot resource statements will be reported firstly.
Zero,
I would imagine that the conceptual pit model would incorporate the JORC assessment.
For a model to be created, the amount of Cu needs to be known and the level of confidence in that resource needs to be known so I can't see how the model can be published without a JORC associated with it.
Just my take on it.
Thank you. All sorted re: Telegram.
A question, on another quiet day, for anyone with any view on this ... I have read that we may have sight of a 'JORC' by December. But there is also the conceptual pit model that is due to emerge. I think Colin Bird said imminently, or soon, or some other term that has been taken by most to mean next year ... ! Although my take from the last but one appearance on The Sunday Roast was that Colin Bird let slip, later on, that the conceptual pit model should land late October. It felt like an unguarded moment wrapped up in a burst of enthusiastic burbling.
So am I right that the conceptual pit model is what will be accompanied by the 'decision 2 mine' declaration as it demonstrates an economical pit waiting to be got on with? This is of course the trigger for AA to excercise their buy back clause if they should so wish.
So what is the significance of this JORC, if it is due as late as December. Is it required. Might ProspectOre be enjoying the love of a new (old) owner before that JORC lands? Or will the potential sale to AA or anyone, rely on the existence of the JORC?
Any contributions to these gaps in my understanding are much appreciated.
And did anyone else pick up on that slipped comment (Sunday Roast, a month or so ago) about the conceptual pit model landing in late Oct/early Nov?
You need to be invited, but I can't post an invite on here - last time I tried I was banned :)
You may be able to find an invite on Twitter somewhere. The Telegram channel is good though, especially as it is a lot easier to post pictures, documents, etc. so you tend to see more research.
I often see references to a Telegram thread for XTR. I am a complete newbie to Telegram but have signed up. Can anyone point me towards a useful thread. Does one have to be invited to take part? Thanks in advance.
Given where we are I would think that your observation is a very positive sign. Who would be bleating into the ether in the middle of one of the most important weeks of your life?
CB on the Sunday roast talking about one of his other companies.
The only thing I can take from the interview with kev and Phil, and it really is scraping the barrel! Even for me. There was not a single mention of xtract! Not even a slip of the tongue. Bit rude I thought tbh normally at least get a plug or a decent piggy back even. There was a point when they were talking about the strong position that his companies are in ready for when the tide turns, kev then also mentioned just AFP, when any other time he would have mentioned xtr.
After my initial thought of complete disdain and even disgust, it turned to wondering if the guys had been briefed not to mention xtr as they have entered into a news blackout. So shhhh not another word!
I think I can see now why they consider 35 to be sub optimal. Due to its east to west orientation and angle it missed the 3rd lateral zone.
These extensive lateral bands of copper-gold mineralisation run north to south and have been tracked at over a km.
Noticed an interesting comment regarding Hole 35 (Ascot discovery hole)
Is very well mineralised -164m@.35%CuEq including 64m@.58CuEq
In end of phase completion RNS 4thAug.
>>> (hole 55) The hole was drilled at an inclination of -80 degrees towards the east, completing at a final depth of 721.5m, where BRDD-21-035 was drilled sub-optimally towards the west.
Could mean sub optimally in terms of 35 not hitting the strongest mineralisation. As is difficult see that hole 55 could have confirmed either way from the geological understanding from just core analysis as the hole was only just completed at the time.
Could they have determined this from core analysis of hole 55? Or was it already determined from hole 35’s assays but not mentioned previously?
Bit late in the day I know, but one that I would hope theiceberg could comment on its significance, if of any?
ZM - Amen to that.
Re-running the now cliched, but still amusing, line ... A (Colin) Bird in the hand is worth two in the Bush(ranger) (or 3 of you include Footrot) ...
I say get on with it. If there is a buyer now at a decent price I say take it and we can all move on. The world needs more copper (more everything really), so a resource is a resource and will always be valuable, but there are significant global risks out there that and kicking the can down the road for another year of drilling could feasibly lead to a 5 or even ten year shelving of the possibility of a sale if another black swan even occurs. And those dark swans seem to be coming at us rather too frequently at the moment. Time to make hay while the sun is still shining.
"The only scenario I can think of is that CB doesn't want to make it too attractive to AA. It may be that XTR is looking for a 'no' from AA before conducting a phase 3 for infill and testing other geophysics targets before going to the wider market. That seems unlikely, but possible".
I suggested a few months ago that this could be the best financial outcome possible although it would take longer to come to a head!
"How much is that then"
No idea - but its certain to be more than current sp valuation :)
Andrew4444:
How much is that then ?
;)
"Its hard to find a scenario where CB is highlighting the release of MREs, creation of models and a decision to mine (while also holding off on more drilling) if the 'mine' wasn't economic - especially as there is income available to do drilling where necessary."
That's a compelling view why this is all coming to a conclusion. The $64,000 question, or should that be $640M question, is what will the conclusion be?
howezap/Steve - Thanks for that, I hadn't noticed that re Footrot assays. The results must be imminent then!! Would be nice to confirm Footrot has gold mineralisation before beginning any negotiations with AA and to give the SP a kick before the big news.
>> The RNS wasn't clear to me whether the cores had been sent to be assayed.
I think they probably have been assayed because of the 'traces of copper' comment, but I agree it isn't clear.
"In addition to the Ascot drilling, two exploration drill holes, FTDD-22-001 and 002 completed at the Footrot prospect, about 7km south-southeast of Racecourse, intersected lengthy intervals of alteration and iron sulphide mineralisation along with traces of copper and possible gold indicator minerals. This could suggest proximity to a mineralised porphyry - further modelling of the geophysical results here will be required."
>> if we were 'short' and couldn't get a decent price for Bushranger, then I'm convinced CB would have ordered more drilling and done a raise if necessary.
Yes, completely agree. Its hard to find a scenario where CB is highlighting the release of MREs, creation of models and a decision to mine (while also holding off on more drilling) if the 'mine' wasn't economic - especially as there is income available to do drilling where necessary.
The only scenario I can think of is that CB doesn't want to make it too attractive to AA. It may be that XTR is looking for a 'no' from AA before conducting a phase 3 for infill and testing other geophysics targets before going to the wider market. That seems unlikely, but possible.
Hi Stevem footrot have been sent, it was mentioned in 27th july RNS update.
>>> Assay results continue to arrive, with the results from four drillholes still expected at Ascot and to the south of Racecourse, and the results of two drillholes expected from Footrot.
There are plenty of rules and laws to prevent insider trading. Obviously, it still goes on and some will get away with it and others won't.... but the risks are high and enough to put most people off.
I do not believe XTR would be under any obligation to share with the market the results of their modelling unless that categorically proved Bushranger was not economical to mine. That aside, they can sit on the info, play with the data to model different option and even discuss with other parties.
What I personally think they are obliged to notify the market of, is if they have a JORC complaint resource estimate of 2mt at Bushranger. This is only because of the unique nature of the buy-back clause and the fact that it would trigger negotiations with AA and news of that would undoubtedly have a significant impact on the SP.
I think we'' get a news bomb in the next few weeks i.e. resource estimates, modelling and new re AA and the buy-back clause/negotiations.
I am a little confused about Footrot though. The RNS wasn't clear to me whether the cores had been sent to be assayed. The RNS dangled the possibility of gold in front of us but didn't say whether the cores were going off to the lab to be tested. It would be a real boost if assays did come back before the news bomb to confirm Footrot is another large gold bearing asset.
Gixxer - I share your frustration but this feel like we have entered the end game now. For me, this is highlighted by the fact that there is no phase 3 - if we were 'short' and couldn't get a decent price for Bushranger, then I'm convinced CB would have ordered more drilling and done a raise if necessary.