Member Info for Andrew4444

ZM

I would think your statement would be factual correct if you had said

"Kakuyu ... adds potential future income to the pipeline" The implication without the word potential is that it will happen, albeit later on.

"You appear to be also saying that XTR should no longer do anything in its stated business model as in the past some projects did not work out"

I'm not too sure who you came to that conclusion. My opening comment was....

I agree that a sensible business strategy is to expand and grow the co and income stream

ZM

I agree that a sensible business strategy is to expand and grow the co and income stream. That’s not the issue though and I don’t think anyone has a problem with that plan, but I think the detractors are saying its hasn’t worked with many of CB small acquisitions. Matrix, Kalengwa and Eureka (so far 3 years on)

Having a plan is fine, but if the company doesn’t execute and deliver on that plan they are going to be open to criticism. Matrix and Kalengwa are not examples of impatience by shareholders, those projects have been closed.

Your opening comment of “Kakuyu ... adds future income to the pipeline” is one hell of a bold statement after what has happened with the other small acquisitions. Some may even say naïve :)

I hope your confidence is justified !

"but anyone have a clue what happened to Eureka income stream ?"

I don't believe we will be getting any income from Eureka. I think it needs too much work and money and it is playing out same way as kalengwa. Less and less mention of it so it slowly drifts into the ether. Then a quick one liner on it by CB saying its not now being progressed. At the same time, as cover, some good news is announced re FB or Bushranger project.

"If we have 200kt+ at Ascot after so few holes it will be great"

If it is less than 200K then I think the RNS was misleading, at best, by using the phrase "significant increase". 10% increase is not significant, just an increase. CB can shoot from the hip with loose comments in interviews, but not in an RNS

It would appear (to me anyway) from the pod cast today that we will be getting more news soon re Bushranger. That was my interpretation from some of CBs comments.

Could it be re Ascot MRE?

Just three weeks ago in an RNS.....

"The Company anticipates that the Ascot Mineral Resource estimate will be completed before the end of 2022"

AND

"We are working on the maiden Mineral Resource for the Ascot Prospect, which we expect will significantly increase the overall mineral inventory on the Bushranger Project. "

Most likely date for this announcement will be in next four days before xmas break imho. Maybe tomorrow?

If so, next question is how to interpret "Significant" re significant increase. That must be at least 0.2mt increase - circa 20%. Lower than that is not significant, just an increase.

I would happily dismiss the above if it was stated in a CB interview, but as it was all in an RNS it would seem possible, probable even, that we will get Ascot MRE in next few days at min 0.2mt increase on current 1.1mt

Well, that's my decoding of it all :)

https://audioboom.com/posts/8215262-midweek-takeaway-with-colin-bird-executive-chairman-of-xtract-resources-aim-xtr

Good to hear we are looking to expand FB and build on what we have.

That type of RNS would have seen the sp move up in previous years. Many getting excited about the potential.

Not now.

I think the market is now numb to anything other than results from CB.

I noticed this:

"with the intention of building cash flow over the near-term "

same thing said about Kalengwa and Eureka. The good news is we will have FB income so no raises to pay for this and worst case is it may only waste about a months of FB income.

Never know, this one may even produce some income! Lets see.

Andy

Yes agreed but my £350k was at full production probably by march

As you say we won't be at 350k at the moment

Dani "In the meantime if you can spell out how you arrive at £340k per month if MMP reaches 80kg per month in production that would be greatly appreciated"

You can't just ignore corporation tax (sorry I think I called it CGT before in error)

Assuming POG 1800
Production tax (6%) 108
Direct cash costs (CB said 560 official but call it 600) 600
Prod tax + Direct cash costs 708
Tax (32%) (32% of profit) 350
Net Profit per ounce 742
Margin % 41

80kg Gold a month = 2560 troy oz
Xtract get 23% = 589 toz
41% margin = net to xtract =241 toz
Monthlt profit in $ (assuming $1800)(241 x 1800) $433,000
Monthly profit in £ £351,00

CB said in an interview 2 years ago margin will be 40 to 45% for FB

We should know soon who is right.

Dani

I really hope you are correct but that is not my understanding of how the agreement works. There is productions costs, CGT and mining tax to come off.

I am expecting 70 to 80 kg a month when we are at full production - probably by March. CBs guidance is always optimistic so I would be very surprised if it was over 80kg a month even at full production.

I am expecting circa £350K a month PROFIT (FB alone ex alluvial income) that's after all costs inc production costs, cap gains tax and mining tax. That may not be anything like as good as your predicted figures but it would be transformational for a small Aim miner and should see the sp back in the 3ps at least..

We should have an indication if your view is correct after first income declared with production figures. I really hope you are correct .

1. Q3 results should be out in next 10 days. Q1 were out 22nd of the month Q2 30th so Q3 should be out before xmas break on 23rd?? Very surprised if they are released between xmas and Ne year. Despite what some have said, Q3 are not late going by release dates so far this year.

2. Ascot MRE estimated should be out (according to RNS) by end of Dec.

3. May get some news on FB re commercial production this month, but January is just as likely for this news imho. 50/50 dec or jan

When I say news, I mean RNS news not CB interview "news!"

Jezzo

Without trying to sound pompous, I'm genuinely disappointed in him. As he seemed a decent bloke and good poster, I gave him the benefit of the doubt for sometime .

It's clear he is trying to spook people and his flawed arguments now expose that. Or maybe justify his decision to sell to himself?

He is also the only person I have on filter !

"4. Jeremy Reid / Quinton Hills decided it probably wasn't economic given the drilling results, but XTR hasn't passed on that information yet."

As the intelligent person you are, you know there's no logic in that. The findings will have to come out through the independent report so passing it on for economic report just delays the bad news. But I think you know what you are saying isnt credible and are now deliberately trying to spook people - as you said on 16 Oct...

"Yes, completely agree. Its hard to find a scenario where CB is highlighting the release of MREs, creation of models and a decision to mine (while also holding off on more drilling) if the 'mine' wasn't economic - especially as there is income available to do drilling where necessary"

You are now clearly trolling the board. Despite what you claim is your motivation.

I have to say I'm genuinely surprised and disappointed in you. I thought you were better than that.

You were a good poster and agreed with a lot of what you said. You have now shown yourself to be nothing more than a more sophisticated version of Pops and others who repeatedly came back and trolled the board.

Now Filtered

(you would have been the last person I thought I would be doing that to a month ago !)

"I just can’t see this team sending off the data to a 3rd party for an economic model only to be told it doesn’t work? I think the market has got this wrong."

Agreed. I made this point before.

Three conclusions:

1.Either Jeremy Reid / Quinton Hills and their team are so incompetent that they couldn’t do what Steve did or may be they couldn’t be bothered as they wanted to watch the football.

2. They did what Steve did and came to the same conclusion, but thought, “what the hell” let us get the economic model out to show we need POC at $11K+ for it to be economic. Surely, the market wont have a problem with that?

3. They did their inhouse calcs and decided it was economic and at broadly current POC, so could take it to the next level for independent economic modelling. Where the economic model would give actual precise details, options and best way to improve efficiency, refine, and fine tune results.

The "not being economic" conclusion re the gap between RC and Ascot is obviously dependent on costs as well as grade. It could be that once the mine is built and paid for from higher grade Cu near surface, we have zero Capex and only opex left for extraction and processing of "the gap" ore .

There still could be some profit in mining "the gap" if that was the case. Maybe not a lot of profit, but more than not processing it??

Not saying that will be the case but its a possibility if you have zero capex in that assessment.

"but I can imagine that Ascot will only be a few 100K of Cu but probably at a goodish grade"

I am expecting circa 0.2Mt increase from Ascot so similar to your view. CB said we should get another 0.2mt from RC after reworking the model.

We may get close to 1.5mt

Its so frustrating, as we have a big resource, but CB's over optimism and misdirection really has caused a negative reaction to what is a big find.

Will CB learn form this?

Of course not !

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/13/copper-prices-traditionally-a-barometer-for-the-global-economy-are-expected-to-soar-next-year.html

"Goldman last week hiked its 12-month forecast to $11,000/t from $9,000/t and upgraded its average price forecast to $9,750/t for 2023 and $12,000/t in 2024.

Bank of America commodity strategists believe copper could rally to $12,000/t in the second quarter of 2023, "

I mean in Africa and outside of Moz

"CB has two or thre places in africa not just in Moz"

All we have left on going in Africa now is Eureka and that's predominantly Copper project, not Gold.

....And because Fairbride and Alluvial Gold production is in Mozambique, not Zimbabwe

Alacran sale.

$100m for 50% so valued at $200M.
101Mt ore
Trying to compare like for like with what we have is obviously difficult for the reasons already stated but the CuEq looks like 0.64 Cu Eq

From Howzap figures
0.44% Cu, 0.27 g/t Au and 2.52 g/t Ag

This increases Cu by 0.2% so 0.44% Cu = 0.64% CuEq so x1.45 on Cu
Using:

*CuEq % = (Cu%) + (Au g/t * 0.6577) + (Ag g/t * 0.008769)

Also from the article:
68.8 million lb copper (3120 tonnes), 55,000 oz gold, 386,000 oz silver. This converts into about x 1.44 of Cu to get CuEq against $ value – so very similar to above calc.

So 0.64% CuEq x 101mt = 0.65Mt Cont CuEq which should be worth circa $200M for full sale.

HARMONY GOLD SALE (as discussed in October)

Gold 10% contribution

Assuming I've got my maths correct:

That was 100M lbs = 45,350 tonnes Per year

15 years LOM = 0.680M tonnes

$170M offer

So one valuation of $200M for 0.65Mt and another for $170M for 0.68Mt

I know its difficult to compare, but If we discount our higher amount against and jurisdiction, against their higher grades, it may give an indication of the figure we should be looking for re buy out.

$150M to $200M does not look unrealistic compared to other sales. If so, that would be circa 15p

In fact our higher grade near surface ore is similar in Cu Tonnage (0.63mt) so even if a smaller mine was built to process that ore it would seem that circa $100m valuation would be possible just for that alone (circa 8p)

Obviously POC will be a big driver in all of this