Member Info for Gixxer-600

Sorry but 'Look at other mining companies and get a better idea of what this company can achieve.' seems a pretty poorly thought out statement to me. Every mining company is different, Geo location etc, an investor should look at the fundamentals of the company they're invested in.

If anything, based on your comment, and looking at miners in the BR region we should be looking much higher than 220m.....

Agreed - And I imagine we will get 2 RNS's for H4 - Notice once they hit mineralisation and hole completion

E10 - I'm sure I read in an RNS that the JORC will be updated following completion of P1/P2 (9 drills?)

Happy that he cleared up why XRF results had stopped being published!

That's what She said!

Possibly - Or AA?!

We should be at around 250m of mineralisation today....Definitely, not, hoping for an RNS tomorrow.

Jakeman, to add to what A4444 has written: CB mentioned a while back in an interview that the way the majors work has changed in the last 10 years. They no longer have large teams scouting on working on new finds. They now tend to leave the big risk and expense of trying to 'shore-up' a potential new asset to small companies (like XTR) they then just buy them.

Is that link correct news? I get a dead end...

Found what I was after:

Feb-1

From RNS:
Colin Bird, Executive Chairman said: “The hole continues and the mineralisation thickness is to our expectations and beyond. We will extend the hole until we reach rock types which are atypical of porphyries in the area or the mineralisation diminishes completely.”

From Interview
'We were pretty, whats the word you could call it, brave, when we stepped out with this ole (hole) and low and behold it's served us well. Erm we need to get the shape. We were guessing the geometry of this hole - guessing is probably a bit unfair to the guys. We were using all the tools of the trade 3d modelling etc and at the end of the day we were stabbing in the dark. I think we'll probably come back with a short hole to confirm and then the idea is to model the geomerty. And then again be a little bit more agressive.

what is the ultimate goal, the ultimate goal is to at least double the tonnage we've got and hopefully triple the tonnage we've got above .5% copper. That's the target....' (we're we all expecting more than this?)

Ref:https://www.share-talk.com/xtract-resources-plc-xtr-l-bushranger-drilling-programme-progress-interview/#gs.td8qjo

I agree DC26

Not meaning to come across rude there CE, I'd assumed my explanation was obvious.

Jan-22

- End of H1 RNS/Interview

Hole BRDD-20-001, was laid out at -50 degrees to drill down the plunge of the Racecourse copper-gold porphyry deposit. Drilling encountered well-developed potassic alteration and copper mineralisation in the form of disseminated and fracture-fill chalcopyrite from 110m to beyond 1,050m down hole, becoming more irregular towards the finishing depth of 1,147m. The minimum 940m copper intercept confirms that the Racecourse deposit potentially represents a substantial mineralised porphyry system.

The Company is using a hand-held XRF Analyser to provide preliminary indications of copper content and samples for definitive geochemical assay will be submitted to the geochemical laboratory on a progressive basis. Accurate mineral content information for copper, gold and other accompanying elements will only be established by full laboratory analysis.

So based on H1 the company (Contracted experts) decided to change plans for H2 based on results from H1 modelling...CB:'To drill across the cigar and establish grade'...

Feb-6

· Drilling in hole BRDD-21-002 has been extended to the current depth of 846.5m, past the original planned depth of 750m, as the hole has continued to intersect copper mineralisation.

· Mineralisation occurs in the form of disseminated and fracture-fill chalcopyrite throughout the lower marginal alteration zone of the porphyry to the current depth.

CB: 'those who know about porphyry systems know it's not about grade, it's about size' (well, it is about grade to a degree). Those two holes that we've reported have certainly - magnitude wise, have given a strong indication of a very big system.

CB: The grades from the XFR, which we've reported, have been pretty much standard for Lachlan folds. 'Very similar to BODA/ridgeway/NP' I assume he is referring to H1 as H2 grades have not been reported to the market (He could mean both holes ofc which would be good news). Third hole to confirm size...Excited waiting for gold results to complete 'perfect' model. CB states he has no worries in terms of magnitude 'not particularly worried about grade'

So, when he talks about magnitude what does he mean? - Is he talking in terms of meeting AA's clause or meeting, what he stated in a recent podcast,(can't recall which one) he's looking for 2-3 times the current JORC?

My own opinion, they've taken a chance with H2 and it's not met with expectations. Yes it appears there is mineralisation for ~500m which will only add to the JORC but I'm still suspicious as to why the XRF results, if taken, have not been released. My assumption is that they are, in general <.2%?!. I believe this is the reason they've decided not to place H3 where originally intended and are 'playing it safe' with the 3rd.

Might sound a bit negative but I've not quite got my finger on the sell button. The tone from CB has changed from H1 to H2 but ultimately the assays will tell the true story. Also, the current SP bare

CE - I really need to work that out for you?!

CE, it's a scientific notation: 1e6=1,000,000

'If there is no confidence in the Hole 2 results which had "descriptions" in the RNS, then it would not be sent to the lab?'

I think your missing my point news. If the XRF scanning of H2 has been carried out and grades from H2 were on par, or better, than H1 then why not publish for the sake of consistency? (surely the market would react in a positive manner to more of the same)

In terms of today's SP it was already on the move before the RNS release....OFC I note it was not hindered by the news release.

I have no lust to get into heated debate here (and I respect your opinion news) but I've also been invested here a long time so am naturally suspicious of CB. (Not to dampen what he's done in the last few months in terms of regular, timely, updates)

'If you read anything negative into it, one would have to question a) you motive and b) you sanity.'

What utter bull**** BH - One could also question your motive by trying to question other posters sanity to suit your own agenda.

I'm quite within my rights to post my opinions on this BB, as are you ofc, but don't try and belittle others opinions as it doesn't suit you ...

FYI I hold, almost, 12e6 shares in this company at quite a low average. I have no need to get the price lower to buy more....

It's a fair comment news; It's just that we received XRF results from H1 when they were on par with the region. I'd have expected the company to release data for H2 had they also been on par with H1 which leads me to wonder that they are not.

CB did state something like: 'we'd taken a risk stepping out with H2' so, for sure it's not the end of the world if they didn't get the results they were expecting. Maybe they don;t want to 'spook' the market. OFC, the market (specifically PI's) seemed to think the grades were not great even though it was spoon-fed that the grades were on par with other mines in the area. That also could be why they've stopped releasing grades.

Would have been good to know exactly where H3 is located too, and I'm left wondering why they decided to move it from the plotted location.

Seems so E10 - I wonder was H2 not as good as expected?

I'm pretty sure the interview was done just after Drill1 - So unless they have bought more the $300k buy was some time ago