Member Info for Andrew4444

Lauren

Maybe there are other willing to lend the money. Maybe SXX do hold some cards?

Just a thought.

Stevensd

If you really cant buy any then you may wish to change your broker. Many have reported problems with Banks so I would avoid them.

When this issue has come up before IG and X-O were the best - as in least reported problems buying.

Although the ask is going up for the same amount since yesterday, I can still buy 500K easily..

Hello IWTO

I didnt realise you were in here !

I would be happy to buy into XTR at current levels, but like many here my loyalty hasnt been rewarded with my long term bet !

I think XTR and AFC are both excellent entry points tbh. Typical AIM. Loyal LTHs get shafted over the years and then new investor comes in just a right time and makes money.

Been looking at this for over a year. Nearly bought a few times.

Risk reward looks very good now imho. I suspect this company will either not be around in a few years time or sp will be 50P +

Well worth the gamble and I think, a great entry point,,,hopefully :).

GLA

All fine with x-o but ask is going up

0.84 less 300K

0.9 Above 300K

Stevensd

I can buy loads at 0.84p. I have an x-o account.

JDAU

I know how the maths works.

Maybe wrongly, I am reading that as saying xtract's income was $320K for Q1. But in all other quarterly updates Q1 income for Xtract is reported as $133K (not including a small amount of gold not sold).

Xtract never received $320K income in Q1 (if that is what that RNS is saying)

"Xtract's net share of the combined attributable contractor income is US$320,000"

From CB's wording at an investor show (can't remember which one) he heavily implied JN was sacked. But did not use that word though.

RE JS. When I've seen him interviewed he has not struct me as dynamic or professional.

In addition, I'm sure he was responsible for production figures stated on the 25 Jan 18 RNS:

I still can’t understand how the following statement is correct:

Xtract's NET share of the combined attributable contractor income is US$320,000 (equivalent to 40% of total attributable contractor income, the balance of 60% attributable to Nexus..

Surely that’s an error and is almost certainly the responsibility of JS. Interestingly every RNS, with production figures, after that 25 Jan RNS had a caveat disclaimer which stated…..

The person who arranged for the release of this announcement on behalf of the Company was Joel Silberstein, Director.

Very sensible disclaimer by CB !!!

Correction

I think JS is still employed by CB because he must know where the dead bodies are hidden :)

Gixxer-600

In my post, I didn’t make any comments about what CB said about JN. My point was that we were told that everything was looking great and just a few months later JN was sacked! The misinformation could have been all JN’s fault, or all CB’s, or a mixture of both.

On a separate but related point re JS. I’m not surprised that JN wanted him gone. I remember when inaccuracies were found in some released figures and JN said, after this was pointed out, he would in future get an independent auditor to check any figures that were released by JN! Shows complete lack of confidence when your boss wants your work checked !

I think JN is still employed by CB because he must know where the dead bodies are hidden :)

Hello CE

I think the merit, or otherwise, in buying now at these levels depends on views on Q1 results. If your view is correct that...

"I think that if anybody is expecting Q1 this year to be better than Q1 last year they may be in for bit of a disappointment."

Then the next set of results will be the lowest ever (against a full 13 week quarter) even with much higher tonnage processing (2 plants). If that was the case, then I think we would be able to buy at cheaper price than today- immediately after Q1 results were released.

For the record, I think Q1 results will be better than last years - but I may be wrong and you may be right !

We should know soon enough !

IMHO

"The department store chain.. said that if Sports Direct did not agree to provide new funding, ownership by the group’s lenders would be the best way to ensure “stability and continuity of trading”. The group acknowledged its shareholders would be wiped .."

I may be wrong, but I read that, that shareholders will be wiped if MA doesnt provide new funding. Well it appears he will be?

Possibly good news. We'll know on Monday.

GLA

Another go !!

=

s h a r e p r o p h e t s

************** = *************

Came across this when looking for video of recent CB investor show presentation. I think it's fair to say things didn't happen as JN said ! Amazingly, the 'it's all wonderful' presentation was only about 6 months before CB sacked him !

https://www.*************.com/views/20727/video-jan-nelson-of-xtract-resources-at-uk-investor-show

XTRfan

It wasnt me who bought at that low, unfortunately.

I did sell a few after the very big end of jan rise as I thought the rise was due to hope and hype (as I stated at time). Been buying some of those sold shares back after ask went below 0.8p

Hello CE

I completely agree with you and understand its better not to be too optimistic, only to be disappointing yet again. I don't want to be too optimistic or indeed too pessimistic, but hopefully realistic. And to that end I would be very surprised if Q1 19 figures were less than Q1 18 figures. Hopefully that view is based on logic rather than emotion and hope.

I know the 200tph 24/7 throughput didnt start until 1 Feb, but as your driver for low expectations was the low grades I didn't mention this. Obviously I could only use the figure you quoted of 0.16g/t as that was the only one you stated.

If we only take into account the 8.5 weeks that the min 200tph throughput started, and assuming the figure is 0.16g/t then that would have produced 46 kg. Which would be 24% higher than all of Q1 18 figures of 37.3kg. Obviously that's also assuming 0 gold was produced in all of January 2019!

For this years Q1 figures to be less than last years Q1 figures, (and assuming we really did start 200tph min throughput 1 Feb) the gold grades would have to be exceptionally low and consistently about 0.1g/t and significantly less than those CB stated to you of 0.16g/t. As the meeting was held at the end of Q1 CB should have had a very good idea of the average grades over the last 13 weeks so I would assume 0.16g/t would have been a realistic and representative figure to quote.

We will have to wait and see what the RNS says but (for the reasons above) I would be amazed if this years Q1 figures were less than last.

As they say, we shall see.

CE

I'm confused!

I thought CB had confirmed that throughput would be minimum 200tph 24/7? See 16 January RNS below

"The Agreement includes performance targets whereby the Contract Miner from 1 February 2019 will be required to have 2 fully operational plants with a minimum throughput of 200 tonnes per hour on a consistent 24 hours per day basis"

If so, even at 0.16 g/t we have:

200tph x 24 x 7 = 33600 tonnes through put per week. = 436800 a quarter (13 weeks)

436800 tonnes at 0.16g/t = 69,888 grammes (70kg rounded)

70kg = 2250 troy oz per quarter even at 0.16g/t. This would be highest ever figure.

What mistake am I making in thinking this??



.

I'm at the stage now that I just ignore any prediction CB now makes against timescales or income levels. I'll believe it when I see it. I am now just focusing on actual results rather than predictions. Actual alluvial income in Q1 and Q2 will be pivotal imho. He can't spin that.

CB has been saying we are nearing completion with hard rock plant for a long time so I'll ignore his latest comment that we are, yet again, nearing completion. In an RNS he said HR production would start in Q1 this year!

I would be surprised if we had any hard rock production this year (hopefully I'm wrong). I do expect, though, HR production will happen first half of next year.

Bob

You are correct that the hard rock income will not get split with Nexus, but it will be split under a JV so we will get a % cut of the total HR revenue - be it 20% or 50%. I wasnt sure if the HR income figures quoted were pre or post the split hence the question.