Member Info for Andrew4444

"then the matter of the SE anomaly which would be the icing and the cherry on a substantial cake :)"

Or it could turn out that the cake could be the SE anomaly and the icing and cherry on top could be the smaller open pit :)

I make it 32 holes in total to be drilled.

6 Phase 1n(although H4 stopped)
13 phase 2a
13 phase 2b

Total 32

23 declared

2 in progress

7 left to start

This isnt very scientific and yes I was getting bored, but I had a look at location of Northparks / cadia / Racecourse on a map. If you draw a line direct from Northparks mine to Cadia mine and extend it on in dead straight line (about same distance again) it takes you a few kms to the west of Blacksprings . Exactly over Racecourse. Not just near Racecourse but right over the area.

Meaningless coincidence or proof of significant porphyry corridor??

Lucky

On page 7 of the report it gives examples of change in mt at 0.15% to 0.3% cut-off. I suspect they used a lower cut off than the 0.3% used in JORC.

The table shows that Cu t doubles when using 0.15% cut off rather than 0.3%.

In the John Cornford article he stayed we had 690,000 tonnes, no doubt as a lower cut-off was used.

https://masterinvestor.co.uk/equities/johns-mining-journal-four-rocketing-mining-minnows-should-you-follow-them/

"Bushranger contains the Racecourse deposit which, so far, has delivered an inferred JORC resource of some 690,000 tonnes copper equivalent, with subsequent drilling showing much wider mineralisation"

Iceberg

Thanks for the source data info. If it came from Northparks direct then it should be more believable than Caravel figures. Strange that there is a big difference though.

Lucky
The Caravel table re bushranger, may have been accurate at the time of publication (a year ago) but obviously its out of date re Bushranger now.

Many thanks for the update Iceberg. Very informative.

I was surprised when you said “Northparkes has 483mt at an average of 0.55%Cu”

According to the Caravel report (link below) it has 616mt at 0.55%Cu. That would mean it has 3.4mt cont cu and not 2.65mt.

I would be very pleased if we did get to NorthParks cont cu level but we may have a little way to go before we reach their level. I'm not saying we won't.

Page 6 of
https://caravelminerals.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2020-11-AGM.pdf

Joeman

Thanks, I must have missed AndyM's post as there was a lot of posts yesterday and only read BB later that day.

I would assume we will get usual RNS with visual comments soon ?

Thanks for clarification.

I don't know if I've missed this RNS or I'm just being thick, but in the Bushranger Prospect Drill Hole Location Plan below, it has hole 22 and 23 completed with EOH lengths stated.

http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/6492Q_1-2021-10-28.pdf

But have we had an RNS stating this along with the narrative of visual inspection? I would assumed that an RNS would confirm end of hole, but it appears we have not had RNS but have had final length stated for these two holes on the drill plan??

"Setting an expectation that isn't met is far worse than simply setting a less optimistic expectation in the first place."

I and others have made this point many times over the years. The short term benefit that you get from giving out optimistic news is paid for, with interest, when forward guidance is not met on time.

That doesnt mean that the 'promised event' never happens though!

O and W

I agree with your comment re CB over promising and under delivering. I've said it many times before. His time lines are always overly optimistic and thats why I said, a month ago, I dont think we will get any FB or Eureka income before end of the year.

However, just because his timelines are wrong doesnt mean what he says wont happen.

I am very confident we will be getting at least £500k a month FCF income by end of Q1.

"Hopefully ph 2 will demonstrate 2mt without need for a phase 3, with the outlying drill holes teasing AA as to what there might be"

I assume this means that phase 3 wont be required wrt proving up the 2mt . Not that more drilling wont happen after the 2mt has been confirmed.

Thinking about it more, it can't be per individual. If the sale is say £250M then 1% per individual (minimum allocation) is £2.5M per person. £5M per person for full 2%.

It must be total payable so it doesn't matter how many participants there are as the total amount will not change.

"The maximum award payable in relation to a transaction will be in the range 1% to 2% of the Transaction value and be allocated amongst the Eligible Participants by the remuneration committee."

I'm reading that as total payable is 1 to 2% amongst all participants. I can't believe it 1 to 2% per individual. Well I hope its not !

I keep reading of a POC sub $9K being used in the calculation re buy-out. I'm all for being conservative and realistic, but wont the POC be estimated, by the independent experts, against future estimated value over next 10 or 15 years?

If so, and because of what we know re future copper demand v supply, the EV revolution and the copper usage in cleaner and greener world, wont independent analysis think POC will be higher over the next 10+ years not lower? How could a case be made for it to be lower?

I may be wrong, but I would think using current $10K POC as an estimate as future POC would be ultra conservative. Using a lower POC than now would seem, imo, simply wrong.

Mr Alien

Agreed. It does appear that the GeoPhys softwear has given us out "X-ray specs"! How useful is that !

(Also one my favourite bands :) )

so true I said it twice :)

NtM

" I wouldn't want to be out of this over the next 12 months'' :)

: ''wouldn't want to be out of this over the next 12 months'' :)

Agreed Cyber

Maybe the update of the 3D model tomorrow or Monday 7 am-just before the AGM.

With Vid of meeting and assay results maybe PR offensive now on??

I agree with 3 Card that very few would go into risky aim stock for 7+ years. That was not my intention! Prickly you are correct that I got it wrong here in the short term.

My time horizon was 2 or 3 years but things got, urrr, complicated as the sp tanked so I just kept averaging down, and down.
I ended up with a substantial holding, of way over 10m shares with a 2.3p average and I’m probably just being greedy by staying in longer as another circa 20p would see me make a substantial amount of additional money.

I maybe taking a risk staying in longer, but that’s nothing compared to the risks many LTH were taking in the Jan Nelson days ! At least I know I;m not going to lose all my money now!

I hope I can keep repeating my mistakes here with other investments :)

GL with whatever you decide to do.

I maybe in a minority of one on this, but IF the options were circa 45p in 9 months or 70p in 2 years (obviously an extra 15 months to wait ) then I would happy to wait longer. In fact even for an extra 20p.

I'm not saying those are the options but what I would do if they were.

I appreciate its just a matter of opinion and everyone has their own exit strategies. I've been here over 7 years so waiting an extra 15 months would not be an issue to me.

Each to their own I guess