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've been blocked from posting on Telegram by the Sunday Roast moderators. However, there has been no attempt to dispute any of the numbers. People can draw their own conclusions from that. Apologies to those people who asked about the numbers and I can't answer them.
Blocked for spreading misinformation, to benefit from changes in share prices?
Yes, a strange new poster appearing today to attack the messenger instead of the numbers - why am I not surprised :)
Steve4077 has always been a trusted contributor here and if he put the work in he's entitled to use that information before he distributes it to others.
However, for the sake of the sp it may have been better to simply suggest that the finances do not look as encouraging as hoped. I, for one will be holding in the hope that Ascot changes the scenery. As suggested earlier, the gold income could be used to expand the Ascot resource as it is open in all directions. Maybe in time, Ascot could become the major resource and RC simply act as an additional source for the higher grade material.
I still think BR is a porphyry system with many sources of Cu etc. Just needs exploring in which case a local mill would have multiple sources of worthwhile ore.
"Blocked for spreading misinformation, to benefit from changes in share prices?"
Steve is not the boogie man here. He did his research and shared it on the BB. No one has been compelled to buy or sell.
Give the guy a break, do your own research and be comfortable with your decisions.
Steve - In your calculation you make the assumption that "operational expenditure (opex) is pro-rata for the ore tonnage mined". But you can't assume that. For starters, all the new ore that has been discovered within that boundaries of that first conceptual open pit, is going to be recovered without any increase in the cost of digging the hole isn't it?
Without knowing exactly where the new ore is sitting and at what grade, how the pit design might change and what it all means in terms of strip ratio, how can you even begin to assess the economics? IMO you simple don't have the data, tools, experience or skills to make the claim you have. I have always respected and appreciated your contribution to this BB but I think you've got this one wrong.
One thing he has got right though. Is trash the sp even more.
All for good of ?
I thought the same Matty. Does it have to hit a certain figure over a length of time to be actioned?
>> Steve - In your calculation you make the assumption that "operational expenditure (opex) is pro-rata for the ore tonnage mined". But you can't assume that. For starters, all the new ore that has been discovered within that boundaries of that first conceptual open pit, is going to be recovered without any increase in the cost of digging the hole isn't it?
When you say "All that new ore" - most of it was in the original conceptual study, which was 470,000 tons at 0.29%, using a 0.15% cut-off. At the same cut-off, the new JORC has only added an extra 235,000 tons at 0.135%. The original study did not include any scenarios below 0.15% except at 0% cut-off, so we don't know how much of the 'new' ore between 0.15% and 0.1% cut-off was already in the original JORC and therefore the original model.
The new JORC also covers a much larger area than the old one (see link) and we also know that for 0.15% cut-off comparison, the amount of ore to be processed will be double (336mt vs 162mt).
https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/2677H_1-2022-11-22.pdf
I'm not pretending to be an expert on open pit design. I have presented all my numbers and my assumptions. The key for me is the JORC comparison and that is just reading the RNS with no expertise needed beyond basic maths. If you want to go into the detail of the high level model and believe my opex assumptions are substantially incorrect, or maybe it will take less than a year to build the mine and reach full production, then plug your own numbers into the model and see what works. The alternative is to trust what is being said in interviews.
As you say though, we won't know for certain until we see the official model.
Best lie low for a bit Steve, instead of continuing to justify your actions. Of course, you have a right as any to share your findings, but in light of todays significant drop and the fact that you have sold up before releasing it. You are not helping the situation.
Are you a smart ar5e with a Funked up moral compass?
I don’t believe you are for one minute, but it’s how you are maybe coming across to others.
You’ve sold up and shared you reasons for doing so. Leave it there Steve.
Steve - without having see the detail of your workings I can't be absolutely sure, but your analysis is probably flawed in a number of respects. For one, there clearly is additional higher grade copper-equivalent in a near-surface area, even if only a little over 0.1Mt. The strip ratio also reduces significantly when considering the whole resource (and to indicate this, just try calculating the volume of a pit, or equivalent cone/hemisphere of the expected size). Third, unit production costs do reduce as the mill size increases, which is pertinent to CB's comment about increasing the mill size to 25Mt pa. So opex clearly does change in a positive way. Fourth, FX rates have changed since July 2021 and - if part of this change can be considered permanent - will have a meaningful positive impact on the financials. Fifth, you don't know what work has been done by XTR and their advisors on the basic model assumptions used in July 2021 - from memory they were based on assumptions used by Boda (a CB reference), and I'd be surprised if they haven't been refined by then. There is much optimisation that can be done. And even if the low grade material is not particularly valuable, the higher margin crown does generate a positive NPV on certain conditions that are entirely consistent with long-term trends - and which would be enhanced by something similar at Ascot (or indeed other outcrops that have been identified by the XTR team). There are so many reasons why your analysis should not have been presented on this forum as an "accurate" summary of the status quo.
I also feel tempted to say - what on earth were you thinking? What were you hoping to achieve? Were you trying to be helpful? Do you feel you've been helpful? You've single handedly caused a disorderly market by spooking many investors here who may not be as numerate as you and are now worried and thinking is he right? Is he wrong? Well he's a Director of Analytics, maybe he is right. There are probably many here who have been thinking through the implications of the RNS, their own response to it and what they should do, and maybe now feel even more confused than before. But you're alright aren't you, you sold out before your "helpful intervention". You've just dropped a bomb in the room and walked away. Well done.
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.
IWTO
Very well written post & could not agree anymore. Sure there are a few others, if not more who do as well.
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.
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'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.
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
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.
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'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.
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 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 !
Steve was an investor in XTR until last week.
And typically a good contributor to any discussions.
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?
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