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.
Nobody really has a view that has a near high degree of confidence on where we now versus 2mt of contained copper.... but even if/when that trigger is reached, the proportion that is open pit versus underground minable is the next big factor in value determination.... so further complication there.. Also there's potentially a big value achievable trade off between price from a quick sale in say q3 versus drilling more towards hopefully proving up much more copper and /or gold in coming months too .. and there are plenty of other factors that I won't bother looking to even mentioning here now too that are to varying degrees relevant to the value determination equation .. so all VERY nebulous imho..
Still a mans/woman has gotta have a view...and the good news is any of many might easily be valid...
So...
I value where Bushranger is now at less than 10p, and see plenty more drilling - of Ascot especially - as the way to - hopefully - get more towards valuations that many are expecting here.. on top, I also hope to get to 5p value within the share price for African assets within the next 3 to 6 months.. and the revenue generated there to kindly pay for the meaningful further Bushranger drilling as we go too .. so, altogether, I'm confused as to why many here seem plenty obsessed with an imminent Bushranger sale occurring....
(although if it's a 'special' to xtr.l 6 to 12 month out imminent definition, then I'm less confused, in fairness)
This is the most important news since the first drills of Phase 1. We shall see exactly how this is panning out.
Let's hope we see 6p or even 7p before the interim summary is released.
There are too many posters here trying to do the work for the company. Why not let them release the summary and we shall all see exactly what they have found in the prospect so far using the drill results, assays and advanced modelling.
What does it matter what posters predict.
Now another one:
"Hi. Using lots of assumptions here, could somebody correct me where I may have gone wrong, if at all?"
Yes, I am correcting you. W e do not need your figures based on lots of assumptions. Let Mr Bird come up with the figures. Your attempt is quite unnecessary as XTR have clearly announced that they "intend to issue a release shortly that gives an interim summary of the Racecourse and Ascot prospects."
PLEASE LEAVE IT TO THEM.
I think trying to second guess dates for timing of news provides false hope and then disappointment when the time frames are missed.
Of course if the summary is really positive then the share price may get somewhere near the highs of early 2021 when the SP reached highs of 8p. This isn't far away really and certainly not out of reach.
"We intend to issue a release shortly that gives an interim summary of the Racecourse and Ascot prospects."
Personally I'm not expecting the 2 MT's yet, but let's hope that it is a positive summary and that we are well on the way towards the target.
Does anyone know when this release is due? Is shortly likely to be within days or weeks?
Hi Art
You might be right that we aren’t there yet, however (and I could be wrong) why would you release something before you are required to do so that is negative. In my experience the CB play book is to release good news early and push bad news as far down the road as possible (why I’m confident the Q1 alluvials aren’t great).
Cheers
James
"On reflection, I think that we can safely assume that if CB is going to release an interim progress report than we are not there yet". - ART123
Either that or the prospect has expanded so much recently that it would not be wise to stop it mid-flow !
On reflection, I think that we can safely assume that if CB is going to release an interim progress report than we are not there yet.
Oh I agree Andrew I do prefer your more common sense approach in the absence of real values.
Howzap
Maths only works when you know the values. That’s the problem – we don’t know the values!
What we do know is that the Cu resource approximately doubles when the cut-off grade is reduced from 0.3% to 0.15%. That’s based on empirical evidence rather than guess work.
Its not so much a case of “moving the goal posts”, but using a more pragmatic way of looking at things in the absence of known values.
Of course IMHO
Love that! If math don’t fit, move the goal posts lol
The current inferred resource is at .44 average. I’m anticipating when updated, that average will have come down to between .25-.3 possible .3+
Whatever economic cut off is derived the average will remain the same. It just means more of that lower grade will be processed.
One thing to consider with the statement re ‘tonnes and grades to justify a rework of the conceptual pit’
This could mean that from this ‘point’ onwards, they believe there will now be ‘real’ economic viability with potential enough longevity of mine life to satisfy a major mining operation. Subject of course to further financial evaluation.
Its very difficult to determine the mtCuEq as we dont know the true shape of the resource and there will obviously be many void areas in the shape.
A slight change in parameters and the final result massively changes.
I now look at it from a different view point and in more of a commonsense way and less mathematical.
We inherited 0.31mt using 0.3% cut-off. We know that by using 0.15% cut off the cu content approx doubles from looking at other findings, so at 0.15% cut off we now have approx 0.6mt inherited. So the question is has all the extra drilling and assy results increased the resource by at least 3 to 4 fold?
With the massive increase in size of the open pit, and not closed off yet, I cant see how the resource has not at least trebled, so I would be amazed of we are not at 1.8mt at the very least. That's using 0.15% cut off which CB said we would almost certainly be using.
I did say it was unscientific :)
Well that changes things...
Apologies for that slight oversight.
Calcs not quite as good now but better if you spread out over the whole of the open pit and consider averages rather than cut off.
1000x500x500x2.7x0.0015 = 1.012MT.
Probably not the best way of calculating possible tonnage as Steve pointed out.
However, if it averages out at 0.2%, we get to 1.35MT
And an average of 0.25, we get to 1.687MT. 0.3% average clears the magical 2MT mark.
Leads me to expect us to be shy of 2MT, but who knows if southern extension exists and has more copper.
Guys, you’re missing an extra zero after the decimal point. If the grade is 0.185% then it’s 0.00185. So you’re out by a factor of 10.
I think Racecourse is currently light of the 2mt but it still isn't closed out to the north and south, and I think it will get there. And it could well be small potatoes compared to what is contained within Ascot and the new gold systems.
Thanks Andrew - I like it!
Ben
This may help re calc volume !
https://www.calculator.net/volume-calculator.html?rtanklength=900&rtanklengthunit=meters&rtankwidth=600&rtankwidthunit=meters&rtankheight=600&rtankheightunit=meters&rectcal=Calculate#rectangular
Steve, you are absolutely right that all tonnage above 0.15% would improve the overall total. In fact the 900m was @0.3% so 0.15 is very low in comparison. As a result, my calcs could be seen as pessimistic but it could serve as a bare minimum for how much we may have. It does show how complicated it is for us PIs to estimate tonnage when the ore body has no consistent grades and we know the shape is complicated.
It is also nice to know that we can underestimate significantly and still arrive at quite a serious deposit in a first class jurisdiction. Thanks to all for their contributions on this.
Just to illustrate, if just 10metres is added to strike length, width and depth, it would only require a minimum 0.185average grade to hit target
910x210x210x2.7x0.0185=2mt
We could go on, it just shows how ‘wildly’ crude our estimates could be, but it does look very positive indeed particularly where recovery rates could be at with RC with predominant copper at processing, and all other factors that would support that low cut off value, potentially even lower.
using Bens measurements, grades would only need to be 0.21% to get to 2mt
With a cut off value of 0.15 then, a conservative average grade estimate of 0.25 using Bens measurements that would easily exceed the requirement would it not?
900x200x200x2.7x0.025= 2.43mt
Do we have any idea of the recovery rates at Cadia etc. Until the met tests are confirmed I would guess it would be hard to infer too much.
Am I right, looking at the drill plans, to think 51 was the last hole drilled and drilling has now stopped ?. I remember with the Cadia Ridgeway report it spoke about drilling had to stop during winter due to the wet ground conditions. Hence maybe why CB has always said drilling will stop in May regardless.
>> 900m (we know we have 900) X 200m X 200m (we know it's not a cuboid but my maths doesn't stretch as far as working out the tonnage of an aubergine or a cathedral) X 2.7 X 0.015
0.15% isn't the average - its the cutoff. All ore with At LEAST 0.15% would be included. The average of all ore above 0.15% would be at least 0.25% and probably 0.3% or higher