Agree with Steve although the mention of assay "batches" in the last RNS suggests there may be a slight change to the release policy from the first hole. I'm excited to see hole 3 results, as CB was especially happy about the visual appearance of the cores. Xtract could ask the assay lab to hold results until they have analysed more than one hole, then release them to Xtract - I've seen other explorers do this in the past and this approach could cause a delay whilst not breaking any AIM regs. A release aggregating results for holes 2 and 3 might be good as it would allow investors to really get a grasp on the potential scale of the system.
Obviously IP survey results are also being collated now. CB mentioned in the last interview that he can't comment on these until they are all received and analysed as it could be misleading. However, if they are already indicating a large system at depth and/or multiple porphyries on the licence, no doubt that news could start to leak out which would see the shares start to tick up (this is AIM after all). Roll on the next RNS...
Ted - your claim "a block cave needs higher grade material than an open pit" is not factually correct. It's just not that simple.
Seriously - do some research on modern block cave mining and the operating cost comparability to open pit mining. Obviously there are many variables involved, but you might see why some of your "unimpeachable" statements draw such ire and ridicule on this board.
I'm now signing off for the weekend - have a good one.
Ted, one of these days you could try doing a little bit of research and then thinking carefully before peppering your usual verbiage over this board. Your unique mix of nonsense, half-truths and ability to conflate information you're misunderstood from the internet is quite remarkable.
For example, this recent comment of yours is complete uninformed nonsense: "even the bulk methods like caving do have a much increased cut-off due to the greater expense regime".
I am keen to read well researched counter-arguments to the investment case for XTR. I think it is helpful for a lot of people on this board to regularly review and re-evaluate their investment thesis. However your writing style presents yourself as an informed authority on these matters when in fact the content you put out demonstrates you are utterly clueless and plain wrong in much of what you say.
Porv./Ted - talk about stretching the truth - it’s 12km away across arid mountainous terrain. Hardly conducive to feeding ore between sites. That other mine you refer to is hugely capex intensive and cost over double original estimates - $4.2bn and counting. Not only that, but that mine is loss making, output has been consistently lower than forecast, and the operators have incurred one of the largest fines ever made in the region for environmental failures. It’s been a complete cluster, in a very inhospitable hard to access area, hence the complete lack of progress with NGEX’s assets. Suggest you check out Cadia to see what xtr *might* have in Racecourse. Your sketchy Canadian-listed Chilean plays are a very different animals (not in a good way).
Cygnus - were Blackrock talking about higher grade cores of the deposits, rather than the overall deposit? I ask because Blackrock hold a sizeable chunk of Solgold. The overall resource of Solgold's main asset is well below 1% Cueq., but it does have a higher grade core which is >1%. I'm hoping that one of the forthcoming drill results will find some higher grade material at Bushranger. In one of CB's recent interviews he mentioned how nice one of the cores looked.... wouldn't that be great if he returned >100m of >1%. That would mirror Cadia which has a lower grade halo and higher grade core at Cadia East underground mine.
Hole 1 drilled straight down the guts of the jorc resource so the assay numbers should be acceptable. Hopefully there's a little kicker in there if the mineralisation improves at depth, as CB previously indicated.
CB stated that first assays would be for hole 1 only, so next expected news regarding the Aussie operations do not seem high risk at this stage. Very happy to hold at these levels.
Same thing happened with GGP for quite a while. I kept revisiting it wondering what I had missed. It was becoming more and more obvious that they had a seriously valuable resource, yet the market cap did not reflect the underlying value.
More positive drill results, decent assays and some indication of interest from funds and/or a mining major and this will charge higher.
Do you remember how MARL didn't disclose their projected AISC until after the Sandstorm acquisition, then it was confirmed what an amazing world class discovery they had with AISC of $374/oz. I did well out of that company but it still annoys me that they withheld such important and positive price sensitive information from the market. Hope there isn't a repeat of that here.
It was negotiated during the worst months of the pandemic crisis. The world looked very uncertain and copper prices were significantly lower than they are today. Great foresight by CB to see that copper prices would rebound and move materially higher.