Member Info for Cygnus7

Correction: 3.77p. I forgot the dealing costs were included.

Well, I just had a small top up at 3.79 on the punt that it's CB who is topping up having delivered the AGM !
Don't see much down side here at this price.

Was there any mention at the AGM of the IP resistivity survey results that were due to be published months ago?

Seems XTR is either sitting on them or wants to keep them quiet. If either of those situations is correct then I'm not sure why. I guess one solution is they are appear to be good but CB does not want to publish good news into a poor market and have a 24 hour boost followed by a month of drift? Just musing.
Does anybody have anything to add on this subject from the AGM?

Just looked up 'kringing'. Very interesting and feeds into my background where I used to use statistics for my work in ballistics - but never hear of it! Now retired....
I had assumed something similar would be used to estimate the grades across the pit. I imaging this is why two extra holes were placed into RC at the end of phase 2. One cannot simply assume that two holes hundreds of metres apart have grades of Cu simply interpolated between the two. This is the difference between an 'inferred' and 'indicate' and 'measured' resources. Hence the two extra holes will not only prove up additional Cu but will give greater confidence to the Cu in the whole surrounding area.

andmillsy,
I've never heard of kringing but I can ask.

Stevemocal,
Yes, maybe you are right. It is difficult to get a sense of what the average across a large area is when the 'hot' zones are so patchy.
On a slightly different subject, I think the 15+ g/T of gold at Ascot suggests that there is a lot more there. You don't (almost) randomly drill hundreds of metres below the surface and accidentally hit a 2 metre stretch of gold like that.

Theice,
Yes, that occurred to me also but then the samples were said to have been taken from 3 different RC areas (plus 1 from Ascot) implying that those grades are available in each of those areas. Would be nice to think that those grades exist across the whole of the pit but the assays (generally) say otherwise.

As I said a few days ago I am currently in contact with a friend's son who is doing a PHd in porphyries to try and unpack the logic behind what seem like high grades used when doing the met work - as reported in the last RNS. Although there have been no 'light bulb' moments I think I'm coming around to the idea that the met results would be consistent for both high and low grade samples but that using high grades give clearer results. Also, as I mentioned previously, maybe the lion's share of the copper will come from the higher grade areas of the pit and therefore it is acceptable to use these for the met work.
If anything new turns up I will let you guys know.
Cygnus.

Howezap,
I didn't mean to imply the met work was associated with only the initial 71MT as clearly the RNS says that samples have been taken form different areas of the proposed pit. My suggestion was merely for the richer grades within the entire pit.

Howezap,
I agree the wording suggests exactly what you infer but I have frequently thought that the assay results as they have become available are a little below what I was hoping for. To my mind, that was compensated for by the size of the deposit. But then a representative grade to use for the metallurgy work would have been lower than that used according to the RNS.
Possibly, metallurgy work uses the richer grades as these will produce the majority of the minable Cu and the RNS has been poorly worded. I don't know but it would be useful if anybody knew more. I have a friend's son with a degree in geology and is now doing a PHd on porphyries. I could ask him as he has been keeping an eye on XTR from an academic point of view. It may take a day or two to get an answer....

Hi Fos,
"What is the assumption at the extreme lower end .33"?
I can't answer that. Due to the vagaries of the data with grades waxing and weaning over the resource I have simply made the assumption that the mean grade is .4% which I have said, I think is a tad too high. If that is true then it is likely that we will undershoot the 2MT mark although Footrot is likely to bring us above that figure - and Andy4444 said earlier this morning.

Howezap,
I have plugged some numbers into my own model although I must say that I'm surprised that the average Cueq grade is as high as stated in the last RNS:

"The samples were representative of the anticipated average copper grade of the deposit, ranging from 0.33-0.48% Cu, with minor silver (1.1g/t to 3.3g/t) and trace gold (0.007g/t to 0.04g/t), other than the more gold-rich Ascot sample which assayed 0.30g/t Au <<<

If I assume that the grade in 0.4%, that the length of RC is 2 km, the width is 500 m and the depth (width of ore) is 400 m and I assume the pit is a regular V shape I get 540MT resource with 2.16 MT of Cu. But again, I'm surprised (and pleased) to hear that the average grade is .33 to .48%. I'm wondering if this is an assumed grade for the really useful parts of the pit and that most will not reach this high a grade. Still, we will soon see.

I was interested to see mention of molybdenum:

No test work has been directed specifically at molybdenum recovery. Some nearby mines on the Lachlan Fold Belt are recovering molybdenum and, in one case a new circuit has been installed specifically for recovery of the metal. At Bushranger, molybdenum recovery will be disregarded for the concept study for now but could make a contribution to a future mining operation."

The eventual value of BR is dependent on fine margins. If these vary just minimally then the numbers can mushroom quickly. There's mention this morning of 10 & 15 p but if theiceberg is correct and the license (RC & Ascot) totals, say 2.5 MT, a value of 10K/T of Cu is assumed and we get a buy out % for Cu in the ground of 3% (each of which are very possible) then the value per share is of the order of 60p each.
I'm not saying we will get that but this all depends on fine margins and if some of the numbers go our way the current hand wringing is going to look rather silly.

Well that was a better day than we've had for some while, and all because a big fish decided to try and take out a tiddler. Personally was hoping the price would stay low so that I can dip in again when some cash is freed up but I'm not complaining!

I agree with Egg & NTM, this seems to be a crisis generated by shareholders rather than CB. Yes, CB is not blameless but he does have to operate in the real world and promises made with the best intend can get sidetracked by world events and good fortune! Who wants to ignore what could be additional resources just so that CB can say he kept his promises?

Just saw this on the Rambler board:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-04/copper-worth-nearly-half-a-billion-dollars-goes-missing-in-china

However, just because it's gone missing (presumably stolen) doesn't mean that it's not meeting demand so in the in the bigger picture - no change!

I think the frustration seen on this board today stems from shareholders wanting to cash out quickly and then finding it's not going to happen as they hoped. That's led to all sorts of accusations, many of which I think are unfair. Yes, expectations were high that this would happen but put yourself in CB's place. If Ascot had never been found then RC would be on the table soon and we could all be happy. But with Ascot still being an unknown quantity how many of us would say "don't care", sell and move on. What if Ascot is as valuable as RC? I think CB is getting abuse while possibly playing a clever hand. By delaying presentation of the model he is allowing Ascot to be further explored, improving the RC financial model due to shallow drilling and allowing the Cu price to rebound. A win/win situation. The price is the abuse he is collecting for missing deadlines. If it means that my shares eventually are twice the value then I'm happy to wait.
I know not all shareholders can, or are willing to wait but as Boris said " them's the breaks".

I think some of you may be over-thinking this RNS. CB always said that following completion of phase 2 that the team would stop, sit back and assess what they have before moving on. And to my mind the phase 3 concentration on drilling out the shallow RC crown is to allow a profitable start to any potential buyer while the further holes in Ascot are clearly to find the full extent of that asset. Yes, I'll accept that there are a few mentions of 'weak' mineralization but there is also a comparison to hole 35 which is a strong hole :
"· Subject to laboratory assays, the mineralisation styles intersected were of a similar nature to those intersected in drill hole BRDD-21-035, and offer potential to extend mineralisation with a high copper and gold tenor by up to 100m at depth."
And from the Jan 19th 22 RNS:
· BRDD-21-035 delivered a best interval of 64m at 0.58% CuEq from 552m, within a broader zone of 164m at 0.34% CuEq from 552m (full detail are in Table 1 below).
So, lets not jump to the assumption it's a wet squib just yet.

Steve4077: I don't think your logic works. The trigger point is simply to ensure that a good resource that they have sold on does not get out of their grasp. As for there being no point in stating an amount in the first place, ask yourself which would AA prefer: to buy a 2MT resource or a 10MT one. Clearly the larger the better. They simply buy it via a % of the in the ground value. If RC were 10MT (if only!) then XTR would either have to sell at around 20% of its true value or would not be able to announce the size of it for years while continuing to drill. Hence my earlier message about my belief that XTR can announce a resource size and continue to drill before approaching AA. That's the way I see it but I'm just a layman in these matters.