Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone 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.
Thanks Iceberg, a very informative opinion and your description of how the company is run, especially in the last 6 months is spot on. I read with growing anticipation all the way through, imagine my dismay when I read the last paragraph......
All we want is an SP prediction !!! lol !
Seriously though, thanks again Iceberg.
Excellent theiceberg it would appear we don't have anywhere near enough information from the company so the the smoke and mirrors will continue. The wait continues meanwhile we have a get
out in manica.
So Iceberg thinks the project is economically viable.
I assume Iceberg was the fellow Colin used to rave about in podcasts and presentations.
Just for clarity I said “ We don’t know yet whether it will be economically viable, however I think it should be.”
And if it is not then what? the Cu stays in the ground?
I see there is the usual bashing around suggesting a funding is going to occur, from the Interim Statement the net cash position was circa £1.45m + there are ongoing revenues from the alluvial gold and now Manica hard rock.
In my view no placing is needed in the foreseeable future therefore.
Yes many thanks to Iceberg for his update and clarification of what is a complex situation for many of us. It gives me a glimmer of hope that all is not (yet) lost and hopefully some of us might even at least break even. Miracles do sometimes happen but when is the big question?
You think? You mean after all this drilling, you don't know?
Can’t believe this share has fallen to £16m market cap. I wish they never published the resource now and just cracked on with Phase 3. CB states this is a massive system - let’s just keep exploring unless we have a very sellable asset- that’s why I am a shareholder. Unless the model comes ups trumps I find this completely bizarre.
Iceberg. Thanks for sharing.
It has been said many times, CB is stretched too thin over many companies and it shows. No communication strategy, just winging it. Every time there is an RNS or interview, the SP takes a hit!
Hopefully the resource in the ground will have the final word.
Someone buying in blocks of 250000 now and looking really oversold
We already know it will be economical to mine.
It's at what price and how much profit it will make.
I looked into it a bit and 15% net profit over the mine life is what they class as a minimum.
Australia tax is 30% on mining profits.
So on a mine they want 22% profit minimum pre tax. So on a 8 billion dollar life of mine capex and opex. 2.5billion pre tax profit would be minimum.
I think bushranger will meet that.
Price to sell it? Not a clue. But I would be happy at 60/70/80 million.
"It has been said many times, CB is stretched too thin over many companies and it shows. No communication strategy, just winging it. Every time there is an RNS or interview, the SP takes a hit!"
You may have noticed RNSs from 2 other Bird companies today, KEN & GLR . Largely positive news albeit most of the content could have almost been cut and pasted from other previous Bird company RNSs.
Yet the SPs remain unmived. Is the market starting to tire of the endless positive spin?
To be clear, 1 penny/cent profit means its economical to mine. What we need the new financial study to say is economical to mine at $4.5LB copper with a profit of 25% over the life of mine. Even at this, it is worth something but its not going to have majors fighting over it.
LETS WAIT AND SEE!
I think 4.5lb is a push at the moment for use in a PFS. I think $4 is more current.
I do also see $5 per lb copper price next year if China removes lockdowns.
So it’s very underwhelming then if you don’t believe majors with be clambering for it , it’s all very disappointing I was hopeful of retirement of this but it’s not looking like that now .
Cela, they won't fight over it. I didn't say a major won't buy it!!! They all know copper will be in shirt supply. Anyone with an economical copper deposit will be in the eyes of the majors.
Even if they just buy them to mine in the future when copper prices are $7/$8/$9 per lb.
It's better for any major to increase their inventory of projects.
It's better to have a borderline economical deposit with potential around it, than to have a mining license on a piece of ground with no drilling on it!!
It's worth more than 17m
@theiceberg. Thanks for the blog. Two quick comments.
1) The JORC comparison you posted was from the doc. However, yesterday I noticed the new JORC RNS used 0.15% CuEq cut-off, whereas the old one used 0.15% Cu, so my comparison was flawed. Given that the gold/silver accounts for almost twenty percent of the 'equivalent grade', a fairer comparison would be to the new 0.20% CuEq Cut-off, which is about 0.16% copper. That changes the comparison from 50% extra copper (as noted in your blog) to less than 15%.
2) You quoted a capex number for another mine at $800m and thought BR was somewhere between $500m and $1500m . I just wanted to point out the study was in AUD, not USD
Steve - Surely the cut-off in the conceptual open pit study is Cu Eq even if it does say Cu? For example, if there was 0.9% Cu but 0.25% Cu Eq, they wouldn't classify it as waste dirt to be dumped.
Should read... 0.09% Cu but 0.25% Cu Eq
>> Steve - Surely the cut-off in the conceptual open pit study is Cu Eq even if it does say Cu? For example, if there was 0.9% Cu but 0.25% Cu Eq, they wouldn't classify it as waste dirt to be dumped.
Copper equivalent seems to be used in three ways.
1) For the total tonnage, such as the new 1.1mt CuEq JORC, which has 922k tons copper and the other 180k tons in gold value converted to copper value.
2) For a combined grade. Same as above - the 0.22% is CuEq grade, which includes 0.18% copper with the other 0.04% coming from gold converted to copper.
3) For the cut-off. The 0.1% CuEq cut-off is for ore that contains a 'combined grade' of at least 0.1%. Only part of that, I estimate roughly 0.08%, is copper and the rest of gold converted to copper grade.
If we take the conceptual study as an example, that used 0.15% Cu cut-off - ore that contained at least 0.15% copper, plus some gold on top - so the CuEq cut-off for that model was higher.
So a 0.15% CuEq cut-off will include some ore that would not be included in a 0.15% Cu cut-off. I'm not saying that one is right and the other is wrong - just that they are not directly comparable.
I've had to filter Steve4077.
Like a stuck record.
Some people don't know when enough is enough.