Member Info for Cygnus7

Andrew, yep, good point. I thought those percentages were low but your explanation would make sense of that.

Andrew444, nothing wrong with your figures in your Monday 20:52 message. But when I do similar sums I divide by a random factor to take account of the level of JORC that will be used. When I last messaged my sums I used a factor of 2 to divide my end result by to account for the fact that RC & Ascot will be difficult & expensive to get a high standard JORC. Maybe possible considering the drilling at RC that has already taken place but pricy to bring Ascot to that level. Additional potential areas will compound the issue. So, I take your numbers then divide by 2 as I don't think CB will drill the guts out of these two resources. Happy to be convinced otherwise.

Thanks Iceberg, interesting, and exciting stuff!

I got the impression that there was an image that CB wanted displayed but the modelers didn't seem to know which it was and ended up simply prodding the hole location image with the cursor to indicate where Ascot was. CB clearly couldn't push this too far as it would more disorganized. maybe that image would have put a different shine on things. Also, I think its unfair to compare this presentation with the previous one. I see the latest as a stop gap to give shareholders an idea of what's happening and it's clearly not the finished article.

Concerning the possibility of a 20p sp - some very ball park figures.
Pretty clear the original pit is over 2 MT, lets assume that Ascot is the same despite reference that it looks better than BR and lets ignore the potential SW pit, the eastern flank, potential northern additions to BR and Footrot. That's ~ 4 MT. For easy numbers I'll use 10K/T of Cu although I know some think this is unrealistic. That's $40B. Multply by 0.75 to convert to £ gives £30B. Lets assume that a major offers 2% for the value of the Cu. There was a figure quoted earlier of 1.75% but I think this is too conservative while previous figures were give as 3 or even 4%. That gives £600M. Lets assume that the resources are never fully drilled as it is too large which means that the top standard of JORC will never be achieved so halve the value gives £300M. Divide by 1B shares gives 30p a share.
That ignores the possible additions to BR, Footrot and Ascot, that 2 % may be very low ball and also all of the African assets. Potentially XTR could breach 40p, maybe more, so no, I would not vote to settle for 20p.

Joeman,
I had difficulty wording that sentence. I didn't mean 'small' so much as wanting to imply that AA now have a big source of Copper and would they want to drink from the same well twice? Depends on how important they see copper in the future I suppose.

I notice that AA have a new large mine in Peru. See details below.
https://www.angloamerican.com/~/media/Files/A/Anglo-American-Group/PLC/products/copper/quellaveco/quellaveco-factsheet.pdf
1.3 BT of ore
7.5 MT of Cu eq @ 0.57%

I wonder if AA's sights would now consider 2MT to be small and if that would affect any decisions regarding a purchase?

Yes Andrew, something brewing.

Well done Steve. You have to fact check these people or you end up becoming a Qanon believer!

Considering your last two sentences, I also have been thinking that CB has been quiet lately. Just wondering if he's keeping a low profile on purpose as he doesn't want to attract too much publicity until he's ready for the 'big reveal'?

Once the pit is confirmed at over 2MT (hopefully) I'd rather see resources spent in the SE corner. Considering what has been found this year Footrot is becoming, for the near future anyway, irrelevant.

Howezap,
I'd be surprised if the next drilling campaign concentrated on the existing/enlarged pit. That may be a way to prove up the resource to a high level of JORC and hence get a good price but in the longer term exploring a potentially much larger resource, albeit to a lower level of JORC would seem to me to be the way to go. Otherwise CB could sell off BR without accounting for the SE (SW?) potential. Just leaving it to the new owner to explore and exploit.
Either that or I'm missing something. Interested to hear any counter arguments although I think we've over this discussion before.

Yep Littlewing. Understood.

Should have added, just above 2MT of Cu for .3% Cu eqv.

Little wing & Andy,
I think your estimates are grounded in common sense and conservativism. When I use my own spreadsheet and put the 'hard' facts into it with a 0.3% grade I also get just under 1 Billion T of ore. But in regality, I think there is more to the east, south and south-west. There's even talk of an additional porphyry under the one currently being explored. It does not take much to imaging this could be double our rough estimates.

Looking at the report I found that Xtract is mentioned about 2/3 of the way down Table 2 using the best hole length X the average grade (hole 20-001). Yet in Table 3 where national risk is evaluated Australia is not even in the list despite 4 mines being listed in Table 2 ! Only for 2 pages further, the text notes that the USA has a 7 to 10 yr permitted time scale compared to Canada and Australia which have typically 2 yrs and are equally thorough. How can you forget a continent?

So, can any geologist confirm: does siliceous alteration mean molybdenum, gold or di-lithium crystal ?

Yes, another 3 x bricks in the construction of BR.
Feels odd though. On the one hand the evidence is building making me feel increasingly confident but the sp languishes which makes me feel more nervous!
Confident in my assessment and after reading Andy's history last night I must say that I sit in a similar position although without the holding that he must clearly have - but still substantial by my standards. Like him, I averaged down to get my cash back prior to BR in the hope of breaking even only to find I had a winning hand when BR emerged.
This is only going to break out when the new model emerges. That will generate some stories in the mining press and then we'll be off to the races.

I'll tell you what I didn't like about the article. It sounded very confused. With statements like 'On the other side we have this entity KPZ which managed, no one seems to know how, to acquire the licence for one the local mines.'
Really, no one knows how? Try looking at the deeds, contracts etc. If they are not kosher then sort it out. Clearly this KPZ got the better of 'the other side' and this article is a response to having lost out in that deal.
Sounds like mountains and molehills.
As I said before, it looks like a government sponsored hatchet job

Hmmmm, reads like a government sponsored hatchet job to get the locals on side.