Member Info for Ella10

Hi DC,
As far as I can see both PL250 and PL251 are lots of different enclosed areas - they seem a bit odd in this regard.. As far as SFR Motheo Expansion Project is concerned PL251 appears to make up a fairly significant portion. I assume from the reported AEM results and where the licence is that once ownership is transferred then there will be some priority drill targets on this licence.

From BZT RNS:
0 - 31m Overburden and saprolite

31 - 99m Partly weathered massive and brecciated gabbro

99 - 219m Gabbro intrusive rock, brecciated in parts, with carbonate veining; iron occurs as magnetite & hematite; chalcopyrite appears throughout the interval as irregular disseminations and blebs, associated with pyrite

219 - 237.2m Shale/Siltstone conglomerate unit with disseminated pyrite

End of hole

Agree and it should be via an RNS.

Steve - listen to the interview where CB discusses why XRF results weren't being provided and then read the detail of the BZT RNS and then decide for yourself. The one difference is the BZT grades are higher but I'm not sure that comes into it.

Interesting that XRF results are given in the Bezant RNS.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/BZT/minemba-prospect-kalengwa-copper-project-zambia-wqw0mdqaj9j0krg.html

A small portion of PL154/2020 is also within the Motheo Expansion Project area but this is separated by from the proposed mine by part of the Cupric Canyon area so it may be explored at a later date. I'm surprised the map of the expansion area hasn't been chopped a bit earlier on the right hand side.

Excellent info DC - cheers.

Good spot,

Looking at the maps I believe PL251/2018 is within the Motheo Expansion area. The area that I believe covers PL251/2018 on their maps is not marked as Sandfire so presumably still awaiting completion. I only had a quick scan of the SFR reports but didn't see any ref to them having acquired additional licences but could well have missed it.

Thanks Iceberg,
Fair points. I do however disagree with your point on being allowed to buy half a share at 50% above current market value - as they need only exercise the warrants if the SP improves - but that is minor.

Hi Iceberg,
The RNS said the fundraise was conditional (but they generally stated as conditional). Is it the issue of shares or the complete fundraise you believe isn't based on the warrants being approved? I can't see how the shares can be issued without the warrants being approved if the agreement with the placees was for shares and warrants.

Additionally, as the fundraise is presumably still conditional we are unlikely have contracted any additional drilling based on this yet. I get the feeling there is something going on here and this is a deliberate delay and not just for assay results - no idea what or if it's good or bad. Presumably the money to pay for the IP survey is in the bank and that is progressing.

The issue of the warrants for the fundraising requires a GM. I assume the date of the GM would be RNSed. I can't imagine that the shares can be issued without the warrant approvals. The shares were expected to be admitted for trading around the 10th May. As far as I know 14 days notice is required for a GM. I am thinking the delay in assays is related and am wondering what the complete picture is.....

Hi Andrew,
The interview does state Q3. However, in the Feb announcement the completion of the funding was expected to happen in early March but it didn't happen until the 21st April not sure if that delay will have impacted construction.

Hi Pedro,
My analytic approach and sheer scepticism concludes that it isn't coincidence that both yourself and NicetiMichu joined LSE chat on the same day and are both currently interested in XTR. Are you, by any chance, both members of the same family? :-)

NicetoMichu,
Good to know it gave you a laugh. I have an engineering background and spent many years troubleshooting issues so I guess an analytic approach is inbuilt - I'll take that as a compliment :-)

Papaduke,
This is just a repost of the interview at completion if drill 3. Reposted as a reference for the fact that they told investors that they stopped using XRF on the drill core. Apparently the assay results for hole 2 weren't that far away in the 23rd Feb and were expected shortly on the 6th April maybe they'll be imminent soon.

Indeed Steve ironically it was the tag that the assay results weren't that far away anyway that led me directly to the correct interview.

https://mobile.twitter.com/ShareTalkNews/status/1364318404606185474

At about 2:41

Steve,
As far as I recall CB said the XRF results aren't reliable for certain rock types and that the geos would be spending their time examining the core content instead of doing XRF readings. I'll see if I can dig out any relevant ref to check. At this stage I think the results of hole 2 are well to one side of hole 1 and I haven't figured out if its the high side or the low side although the low side seems more likely.

I suppose one mitigation might be that the contracted drilling can be used on other licences but that would need to allow movement of timelines.