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.
Not for one minute do I honestly believe that this would have been sold last year.
With the so called ‘difficulty’ that he stated recently that they are facing in proving the decision to mine. The company will be now looking to negotiate ‘out’ of the agreement.
This would have been very likely always known to be the case since inheriting the buy back agreement on acquisition of BR.
So why did the company not approach AA straight after the updated Resource for RC and MRE for Ascot were released? As in theory, they could have just struck a sell on deal with AA when the 2mt option was not reached if he really wanted to tie a bow round it and sell it.
Far too much significance has been placed on the agreement and its terms. Although, as far as we know it’s legally binding, it has been used at the centre of BR marketing strategy. But in reality, with a budget assigned to explore and build on the resource toward upgrading the JORC along with a complementing economic study are generally set in stone and the same for any project even if 2mt was reached.
They were always going to make the project as desirable as possible within that budget plus maybe a contingency to act on any further recommendations they feel will add further value that the latest study will throw up.
We would highly likely ‘still’ be here and now if 2mt was JORC’d in this current economic climate.
The problem is "in a year or two" from now wasn't what I was sold by CB, in reality it would have been done and dusted a year ago by his guidance .
Three years more at least of having a big lump of money tied up (lost on paper) here could be a serious blow to my retirement plans.
Why isn't he promoting what a great financial position this company is in going forward with our earnings ?
I've had people like CB in my life before, I don't trust him at all but I just have to put up with it until he decides he wants or needs another spike to keep the gravy flowing.
We need a CEO more than ever here or we will be under a penny in a short period from now.
I was well and truly taken in by the Birds BS when this went to 8/9p a few years ago. Snake oil salesman springs to mind. Shame on me.
Do agree Andrew, BR will be ok.
Here’s my take on one reason why the study could be taking so long. I’m sure they could or are looking into alternative ‘sensor based’ ore sorting tech to see if the higher grade will be amenable for pre concentration too, to warrant utilising a smaller grinding mill that will ultimately determine the size of any processing plant that will have a huge positive impact on the NPV model from reduced capital outlay and future Op costs. ‘Without’ that further ore sorting option for the higher grade early payback phase, a smaller mill will create a bottleneck in the flowsheet design and actually extend the payback period.
So I think, until an alternative in the short term can be found and is factored in, I personally don’t think they will release the updated study until then, if they want to show optimum economic performance. If they do release it with the TOMRA results in its current state ….(CB had implied they would get something ready for the market) ... although it will have brought the abundant low grades into play, it might just spook the market further if the economics ‘overall’ are too far from being as desirable as could be if they believe there is different tech available at present.
I have no doubts there are sensor arrays out there suitable for BR’s higher grades, if not yet, then the technology will catch up as it is constantly leap frogging previous outcomes due to the rapidly developing technology.
An example is Caravel who have left out their impressive ore sorting results in their recent PFS that ‘were’ in their 2018 scoping study, to wait for the very latest technology advancements to then include it into their flowsheet design in their DFS.
BR is nowhere near advanced as that, but just needs to show a concept that works for another company to take it further. The TOMRA results may fit that bill and be sufficient to offload when the crunch comes in a year or two without spending too much more money on it.
in the case of the us and it's debt, the new house speaker (johnson - who does not believe in evolution and that ****sexuality caused the fall of the roman empire) had an interesting first bill to tackle the national debt. the bill wants to reduce the national debt by rescinding binden's previous bill to increase spending on the irs which is designed to investigate tax dodges by the wealthy . as each dollar spent in this way is estimated to return $7, cutting this additional spending will actually increase the national debt. but then, cutting the national debt is not really the goal, triggering the libs is!
Jezoo, we owe the money to the people/institutions/funds that buy the government bonds (gilts) we issue every month or so. The IMF gets its month from the member states who contribute according to their relative GDP size. I presume if it needs more money they call on the member states to contribute more on a proportionate basis.
I agree the concept of debt when it gets so large starts to become rather strange. But one thing is for sure IMHO, if countries collectively decided for a reset then that is the last pages of book of revelations. We may come out of all that after a couple of decades with clean balance sheets but probably living in caves again.
One thing that's always confused me is who do we owe it to ?
The IMF ? Where do they get it from ? Ultimately the money is irrelevant, it's a human construct and as such isn't a tangible thing therefore you can change the rules regarding it.
There will a hiatus eventually, (Western) Govt debt worldwide will be written off by general consensus and we'll have a reset.
Why not ?
Https://www.usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html
I love this site for the US debt. Here it is forecasting for 2027. To believe that we can keep this spend , spend , spend going indefintely is folly. Net zero is just another socialist excuse/wish list to spend money. There won't be the money to pay for it. Equally , as Panama has shown, there is no appertite to have a large, dirty mine in your backgarden. I have no idea how it will play out but gold still looks a good bet to me.
In answer to your question, I refer you to the last line in Andrew's post below Jezzoo :-)
I've long said we need a CEO, and what would happen to the company if CB carked it unexpectedly ?
I think it will all end up OK with BR but it will not be anywhere near as good as CB stated and will take a lot longer than implied for the sale to be finalised. POC will no doubt need to be a lot higher , which I'm sure it will be in the next 1 or 2 years
Question is will CB still be around by then ? He's 80 on Saturday !
Some may well say if he's not the CEO then the sp will get a boost :)
''A good hold or buy at a £10 market cap.''
That typo made me laugh out loud.
More seriously, CB needs to start specifically and focusedly publicising Manica now.
(If he doesn't do that into early 2024. I'll start posting hard for him to bring in a CEO here asap and will also look to meaningfully downsize the max bet in play I allow myself here too)
Totally agree with the fundementals cyberiachas, pity it's not translated into a relevant SP.
If only CB was as ebullient with the facts as he is with daydreams.
Yes worth remembering that we have a cash generating business that could be making £4-£5million netto per annum with the POSSIBILITY of a sale of Bushranger and a couple of very interesting exploration options.
Events in Panama with First Quantum show the importance of jurisdiction- BR being in Australia raises its value as much as any ore sorting and this will come to the fore more and more with increasing geopolitical instability .
A good hold or buy at a £10 market cap.
Yes, seems like an interminable wait for reports into BR financial viability and any new direction the company will be taking now that it seems to be cash positive.
Just had a Tumbelweed bump into me and it woke me up.
Even if you ‘were’ to take a somewhat sceptical view that the rise in demand for copper will not come from the electrification of vehicles ‘in particular’ as CB has pointed to. That increased demand imbalance over supply will still come from those emerging economies around the world to provide electricity to the billion or so people that don’t have it, and the opportunities that further demands on copper will bring. Also with advancements in technologies to distribute it, in renewable energy and battery storage, these technical advancements will accelerate that coverage with more and more copper being needed at every aspect.
CB has tweeted about an interview with Blackrock fund managers about the lack of focus on metal's contribution towards net zero targets and the subsequent disconnect between future supply and demand. CB has been banging on about this for several years now, but it does seem there are others of the same opinion. The price according to LME is currently 8140 per tonne, whereas two years ago this month it was 10500 per tonne. So there has evidently been no impetus with the price in the last two years. Very frustrating bearing in mind the supposed headwinds and context.
From the article:
Mr Hambro said: “Investors have to date been focused on the companies more closely associated with the [net zero] transition, like electric vehicle manufacturers or renewables companies, rather than the companies that supply them.”
In a report published on Monday, the Blackrock fund managers warned that an expected “surge in demand” for base metals like copper could lead to widespread shortages and higher prices, adding to the cost of achieving net zero.
They said: “The demand for metals and materials in the coming years is poised to surpass all prior estimates.
Consider copper, the lynchpin of power grids, or the rare earth elements critical for wind turbines. As the global transition to low-carbon technologies accelerates – possibly faster than market projections – this surge in demand could be highly underestimated."
Non paywall link:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/investor-disdain-for-mining-is-threatening-net-zero-says-blackrock/ar-AA1j6obo
Andmillsy said : "I really would like to have some clarity / proof of the actual cash flowing into XTR coffers."
I would also like to know what due dilligence XTR to make sure we actually get what's due to us.
Do we just accept the production figures or do we have an operative or two on site making sure we don't get stiffed ?
Very helpful James. I know you get this from your reference to production tax but repeating as it may help others - the reference to royalty is nothing to do with Empress royalty 3.375% which is solely for MMP account and this was clarified in RNS by XTR some time ago.
Kind of you to say that NtM - getting this below $1000/oz cost and if gold extends its gains to above $2000/oz the two factors really would shift the needle.
I really would like to have some clarity / proof of the actual cash flowing into XTR coffers.
Hat tip to jamesiecakes too.. I hadn't read that post ahead of posting mine..
Much appreciated andmillsy and Naughtiegordie... (and you are such a quality poster andmillsy that I again here/now gratefully tip my hat to you)
This is v important; and CB has to be very awake to doing everything he can to get the operator to bring these costs down asap. In that recent q2 Manica RNS he did at least say.. ''We continue to work with and encourage the Operator to achieve sustainability and excellence with a view to reducing mine costs to below US$1,000 per ounce which we feel is achievable against all of the critical parameters of the operation.''.. and that shows me he is awake to this.
Getting down to under $1000 per ounce would be a meaningful thing in itself from where have been at recently ! (even around $1000 would be good progress, please.. and generally there's clear scope for bottom line improvement in revenue to xtr from this production cost management aspect.... as well as production growth etc too
(but I also note that $700 or $800 per ounce costs seems now parked away in the very full car park of Colin Bird bullish+t vehicles.. or more succinctly, yet more Birdsh+t)
Hi Andy
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/definitive-feasibility-study-eqcnevjxyc9ebax.html
This is the DFS for Manica, which shows the break down of costs (C1, C2, C3). This report should include things like security etc so you would assume they are in the C1 category (perhaps other?) Clearly we are now in a different cost environment but it’s still a useful starting point.
My understanding is that the Operating costs quoted in recent production reports is C1 + royalty (6% production tax). So if you strip out the royalty from 1215 you are left with approx 1100/Oz in C1 cost for Q2 2023 which is quite an increase from the 800 CB quoted in the 2022 full years released in June 2023 hence should have been based on pretty up to date figures. It’s very unclear if the infill drilling is the sole driver of this increase or costs have just gone up elsewhere but for me XTR need to expand on Operating costs so investors have a reasonable idea of what Q3 and beyond costs will be.
Cheers
James
Lucky - sorry, I meant Pricey. As he has just pointed out on the BZT bb, plenty more work required.
Gordie/Howezap
Here is what he wrote in the annual report which was issued at end of June 2023.
"Production has stepped up further since the balance sheet date with the plant processing approximately 40,000 tonnes
of ore per month. The new plant has proven reliable and is producing recoveries of around 88% from the oxide and
weathered transitional ore. The plant has C1 operating costs of approximately $800 per ounce."
Unclear why he decided to quote C1 costs - I would have assumed they would be broadly similar to operating costs which are actually relevant to the agreement with MMP for FB. Infill drilling must be incremental to C1 costs but part of operating costs and there are likely other costs which are additional to C1 for example site security and general faciliities etc.