London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

I agree that the visibilty and exposure of the AA buy out agreement is/will continue to be crucial to the magnitude and speed of mcap appreciation at xtr (assuming continued positive developments).

Significant, active and safely located discoveries are really exciting the current resource market.

Overlayed (extra over) on this is this visibility towards 'near term' potential of part monitisation.

Importantly the AA buy back seems subject to a jorc resource, to my knowledge/recollection (happy to be corrected), no stipulation of category, or proportion of categories (eg, minimum 10% measured and minimum 20% further, as indicated) exist. Imv then, the lowest certainty category - inferred would be actionable (although will command a lower 'fair market value').

Inferred resources require far fewer holes to be drilled and could realistically be completed this year with the right drill intercepts (consistent - allowing predicatibility between holes) and the current rate of drilling, imo - perhaps an area where my opinion differs from that of JC (perhaps im being unrealistic on the meterage required tho or mistaken re - the buy out agreement - please correct me)

Importantly, the way the deal prose continues.....outlining further dilution down to an nsr (without pro rota contributions), in light of the retained 20%, concurrent with substantial cash injection, allows realsitic possibilty of minimal (if not zero) further dilution prior to construction decision, if not, even as far as production.

The free cash flow 'then' (production) on a per xtr share basis 'now' would likely be 'pretty unbelieveable' (considering the current cost to aquire each xtr share today). Thats along way off and highly speculative but still...its the visibilty of the 'pathway,' available to the market that i think is significant. Eua had its resources for a good while, it was the visibilty of near term monitisation (& scarcity of asset base coinciding with underlying commodity price movement / strength) that captured the attention which in turn caused large & rapid mcap appreciation.

Drilling out the resource to indicated and measured would/will be both time consuming and expensive, a balance from mgmt is likely to be considered as to where the optimal approach rests in respect to the timing of 'attempting' to trigger the buy out (realise a jorc of 2mt CuEq). I trust CB to nail this.

Realise this thought process is jumping ahead and we are just at the very beginning, but just like keeping what 'could happen' as part of any decision making process.

AIMO ATB

My thoughts after reading todays rns....

Good that we know the holes aim, location & orientation with respect to the expected ore body.

"angled at -80 degrees and is offset from strike with the aim of crossing through the down-plunge extension of the deposit at depth"

Good that mineralisation has been encountered before the main porphyry target depth was expected.

Knowing the hole orientation I now think that any determined width of mineralisation (weak, moderate, strong significant, or whatever terms are used) will not represent a 'true width' but rather an oblique width. The hole is not being drilled at the expected 'normal' of the deposits dip. Any width ascertained by this hole will likely be greater than the eventual true width. The 'true width' being the measurement one would use to calculate anything, if using it as the diameter input (cigar/cylinder/carrot etc).

I think they are targeting the newly discovered material actually (being, to me, the "down plunge extension").

"Weak to moderate copper mineralisation" first noted at 130m, becoming more pronounced from 340m.

The terms used are of note, previously the down hole plunge mineralisation was described as "significant" and "continuous" from 110m. Now weak and moderate have been used without the use of continous. Given that hundereds of metres of the continous mineralisation was rns'd as giving preliminary (xrf derived) cu grades that fell outside a 0.2% cu cog. Im personally using caution before expecting the weak to moderate (or even the more pronounced) mineralisation as being counted as an intercept using the same 0.2%cu cog, obviously not implying anything in CuEq terms tho.

Overall indications, for me, are that they are progressing well without drilling related hitches and are on course the enter the main porphyry target at, or perhaps prior to, the expected depth.

Just managing my own expectations and recording why/what they are based on. The "more pronounced" material eventually being rns'd as an intercept will therefore be a nice suprise rather than anything else.

AIMO ATB

Revised my working estimates today based on rns'd preliminary cu grades.

Working top of deposit 110m

110 to 150m = 40m @ 0.3% via 0.2 cog
150 to 171m = 21m @ <0.2% cu
171 to 319m = 148m @ 0.3% via 0.2 cog
319 to 474m = 155m @ <0.2% cu
474 to 761m = 287m @ 0.3% via 0.2 cog
761 to 1050m = 289m @ <0.2% cu

Total meterage greater than or equal to 0.2% cu, 40 + 148 + 287 = 475m

Total meterage less than 0.2% cu
21 + 155 + 289 = 465m

Average grade of material that is at greater than or equal to 0.2% cu - 0.3%

Average grade of material that is at less than 0.2% cu - unknown. Will attribute 0.13% (guess) based on it being less than 0.2% yet being rns'd as visibly mineralised (940m continuous mineralisation).

Weighted average grade of 940m mineralised intercept.

940/100 = 9.4
0.3% metres = 475/9.4 = 50.532%
Guessimated 0.13% metres = 465/9.4 = 49.468%

Weighted av % =

((0.3 x 50.532)/(0.13 x 49.468))/100

= (15.1596 + 6.431)/100

= 0.216% Cu

Assuming my same 338m tonnage guesstimate contained copper (as copper) becomes

338m x 0.00216 = 730,080t

Gold grade required for 2mt CuEq assuming pog 1900usd/oz and poc 8k usd/t

2m - 730,080 = 1,269,920 x 8000
= 10.16b usd (of value to find) /1900 = 5.35m oz or 166,292,664 grams.

166,292,664/338,000,000 = 0.492g/t

I know its too early to do (with any certainty) this, but Im merely updating my personal working estimates and seeing the implications of new data on possibilities going forward.

The rns today bodes very well for my previous 0.1g/t au grade guesstimate being a significant underestimation.

Boda av gold grade = up to 0.35g/t (av of >2bt of material) (quick Google - edition dec 2020 note), or via ksdd003 hole 502m @ 0.48g/t (for local precedent).

Just recording my personal thoughts / estimates, altering as the data is revealed. Im definitely no expert, if this is of no interest - please just ignore.

Sensitivity to pog vs poc just became more important in respect to achieving any particular CuEq tonnage.

Slightly surprised by and overall pleased with the news.

AIMO ATB

Big thanks for the estimates complete with quantification, ultimately necessary (however ballpark) to attempt value/potential value assessment before explicitly stated (eg rns'd) to a then much more 'level playing field' of market participants.

Many ways of coming up with educated judgements, imo.

My conservative estimates (what I'm basing my expectations on, above this - personal nice suprise, below this - personally slightly less than current thoughts).

From this link and various company rns & presentations....

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IhTL-bv65wcJ:https://hotcopper.com.au/documentdownload%3Fid%3DtuE7JrfFgm%252FOGe3kZXCYEW%252F2TEVf4Ai%252Fzw311o9YkqsjTevSSYocXApvbUamxg5J3z8ubI5McZuzod3LAIw3yeEjZA%253D%253D+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk?=uk

We had 27.6mt go to 52.5mt with cog change from 0.3 to 0.2%Cu.

Previous work (the latest pre xtr) 'expanded resource' to 71.4mt @ 0.44%Cu via 0.3 cut off.

Now looks quite likely xtr could 2.5x the 'expanded resource' tonnage-wise (guesstimate based on 940m mineralised interval on first attempt & previous widening with depth).

So 178mt, applying same ratio of tonnage gain from same cog reduction (0.3 down to 0.2), ratio being 1.9.

Maybe looking at 178 x 1.9 = 338mt at, averages of, say 0.38% cu (previous grade reduction with depth) and 0.1g/t au (slight grade increase with depth).

Giving CuEq of
Cu 338m x 0.0038 = 1.285mt
Au (338m x 0.1)/31.1 = 1.086m oz x 1900 (pog) = 2b usd / 8000 (poc) = 258kt CuEq
1.285 + 258 = ~1.5mt contained CuEq.

Not far off, surprises to upside on grade/s or spot metal price/s shift or increased width or including Ag or further reduce cog to 0.15% = decent chance, imo, of AA buy option trigger - just from racecourse.

If not - 1.5m x 8k = in ground value of 12b sold at 1.5% (consevative) in ground value 180m usd/131m gbp.

Could realistically happen within 12 - 18 months.

131m / 730m = 17.8p

If so - 2m x 8k = in ground value of 16b sold at 2% (less conservative) in ground value 320m usd/233m gbp.

233m / 730m = 31.9p

++ all other Co assets including rest of bushranger (footrot/Southern prospects), and what CB could achieve with a chunck of that cash (50m say).

Understand & accept if/that some think this is pointless but I don't.

Think I'll hang on to mine for a while see what comes to pass.

AIMO ATB

Thanks montyboz for the continuous drip of very helpful material.

The most recent.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IhTL-bv65wcJ:https://hotcopper.com.au/documentdownload%3Fid%3DtuE7JrfFgm%252FOGe3kZXCYEW%252F2TEVf4Ai%252Fzw311o9YkqsjTevSSYocXApvbUamxg5J3z8ubI5McZuzod3LAIw3yeEjZA%253D%253D+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk?=uk

Includes..

"The resource tonnage and contained copper increases rapidly as the cut-off grade is reduced."

This is exactly what I was suggesting from my analysis of the block model slice (posted 17/01/20), including...

"The section re the block model was explaining how/why I felt confident to claim the reduction of cog would likely significantly increase contained copper without even driling 1m."

The below is also very encouraging.

"The economic cut-off grade derived from the Scoping Study is 0.20% copper and 0.15% copper at copper prices of US$7,500/t and US$10,000/t, repesptively."

With greater scale (much increased depth already looking very odds on) these respective usd figures may reduce for the applicable grades (+ implementation of modern tech in processing etc). >10k (>4.54usd/lb) Cu could be here sooner than most think in any case.

Also 92% cu recovery from the sulphides bodes well.

Thanks again.

Side note

https://youtu.be/JDb_qSAdLVo

CB knows it, he's planned for it (so much work goes into seeking out the chances and positioning the vehicles to be attractive enough to do the deals to get those chances), he will (in many ways already has) execute it, as now is 'subsequent (7:30 mins).'

Timing is everything, look what he did early/mid 2020, that wasn't merely spontaneous, his salary (our dillution over several years) paid for this unseen (broadly and commonly apparently unappreciated (not by me ref: my post 13/02/20 last para)) work and accumin, and now is his/our time to reap whats coming after he's got us those chances.

Yesterday someone asked. "The bit that gets me is why AA did not drill this further?" Imo, low copper/comod sentiment/price/forecasts & need to focus and reduce liabilities.

Just my thinking anyways.

Quite pleased with the funds raised and the activities/newsflow they can likely facilitate.

AIMO ATB

For the avoidance of doubt....

As there appears to be some misunderstanding?

The main points i was putting forward were....

That a substantial part of the block model slice provided in the presentation falls below the cut off grade (won't have been included in the existing 71mt) yet is modelled as containing potentially economic copper.

The recent movement in metals prices, were they to be maintained, are acting against anyone wanting to have xtr maximally boosting any resource in Cu Eq terms. Copper down and gold up would act to boost Cu Eq tonnage (opposite to recent movement). This is only important when considering the relative movement of the two prices as Cu price going higher obviously is good and the higher it goes the lower the cog that can be justified and the higher will go the contained copper tonnage.

Attempting to allow some quantification of the amount of 'discovery' so far (Friday) in terms of a vertical mineralisation extention (beyond that already postulated in Co literature).

The near 6x resource target is not a 'finding' of mine it is just a consequence of figures put out by the Co. 2m divided by Cu Eq tonnage (contained copper plus golds contribution).

I'm not suggesting any unlikelihood of reaching 2m contained copper, just trying to understand the various factors that affect that likelihood.

Completely agree that 2m can be achieved quite easily with realistically achievable (given the postcode) drill results. I was just calculating what was purchased by xtr (existing).

The section re the block model was explaining how/why I felt confident to claim the reduction of cog would likely significantly increase contained copper without even driling 1m. The calculation of the existing contained Cu Eq resource is completely separate to anything I did re the block model slice.

I haven't calculated the resource from
any extrapolation on my part (from rhe block model) just using the company figures and, significantly, up to date metals prices (as stated).

I am overall, bouyed by the findings re the reduction of cut of grade, the depth extention so far, and await the assays with much anticipation.

Also afraid I'm unfamiliar with live wire markets, I just tried to get a bit of handle on a few things myself and put them out there for comment.

Whenever I post (almost, but certainly in this instance) I am invested in the share I post on but at the same time I try to maintain balance and consider all aspects.

The @news paragraph was just me directing you (or anyone else who commonly experiences similar annoying research curtailment - as you mentioned) towards a resource you may decide is very beneficial (up to you tho) but I don't want to be explicit given the resource in question.

Yes I remeber it well it was the one beginning with A.

AIMO ATB

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Dave85

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)