Member Info for howezap

Thanks for sharing that ,

>>1968: First production at Aitik. Initial production rate is 2 Mt/yr at a head grade of 0.51% Cu.

That suggests Aitik early years concentrated on the copper first in a relatively small operation. At what was back then, considered a low grade, The copper price when Aitik completed its feasibility study in 1965 was based on price range for that year of between 40-60c per lb, is in line with todays inflation adjusted price with average of 3.96% increase per year since then. Cumulative of 849.75% over 58 yrs making 50c copper price in 1965 worth about $4.75 today.

But as have said before on here, with the increased demand over the years that saw the previous high reached in 2012 of $4.62. With the inflation adjustment it would need to reach $6.02 just to be worth the same amount. So with unprecedented demands expected to increase over the next 10-20+ yrs higher prices will ensure copper futures support viability of lower grade large bulk mining and short term, could even increase BR’s mineral resources as economic cut off grades could reduce further.

Need to prove its viable first!
Very confident though, we will see favourable break even points across the range of copper sale prices from the high grade material that will hopefully be what shows BR to be economically viable.

Other examples locally, Cadia had far more gold initially and with Boda, it will be its really high grade breccia zone that comes to surface that will make the resource initially economic to start up. Elsewhere as a better example of a copper dominant porphyry deposit, when mining at Aitik in Sweden started in the 60’s I believe, it had a small reserve of 50mt, by 1998 the mine had yielded 300mt of ore. As of November 2009, ore reserves were 747mt grading was consistent still at 0.25% of copper and 0.14g per tonne of gold Copper is and has always been the most valuable commodity in Aitik, accounting for about 80 % of the revenue. The second is Gold at 15%, followed by Silver at 5%.

Aitik was small scale at first that grew its operation massively over many years, BR will be taken to market with about a billion tonnes resource with economy of scale.

A significant factor to consider too, Ascot, could play a big part in contributing significantly to the financial model if needed, to improve on the economics, with the gold systems being bought into play along with establishing the high grade crown which is still to be found. Is very reassuring.

Value-
Was mentioned that AA will want to see the hard numbers and that the company are heading toward funding. ( Xtracts 20% contribution ) The reality of that could attract greater project value.
“Viability over quantum”

>>>The ability to attract funding for the capital expenditure and initial working capital requirements of a mining project is also crucial. Projects with a funding solution in place are inherently worth more than ones without.

Valuing-
Is very likely the NPV will be derived from a DCF model.

PFS -
You can start to see where the quality of the work and the project decision making from the experienced team comes into building the resource and why. In the past CB has spoken about what the team are doing with the quality of their work being second to none with the data pack they are putting together that will be good enough for any major.

-Valuation of projects
https://insights.csaglobal.com/valuation-of-exploration-projects/

-Why pre feasibility studies are important
https://insights.csaglobal.com/why-pfs-really-matter/

-Market value v NPV
https://insights.csaglobal.com/market-value-doesnt-match-npv/

In all honesty, ‘any’ good news is still going to be wasted in this economic environment right now, yes it may create some immediate buying pressure, but as we have seen over the past six to 9 months, it will inevitably pull back again under what has always been minimal selling pressure. So when tighter monetary policies are eased and there is more stability in leading economies, buying confidence will finally return.

An RNS to announce a company asset presentation? Current investors will have all they need to know already and potential new investors should be making the company website their first port of call anyway, so I don’t really see the benefit.

CB has the right individuals in place across all his companies with the specific capabilities, values, and experience to manage and move projects forward. If he couldn’t keep on top of his own workload across his various companies, he is astute enough to do something about it. If it were at the detriment of any those particular businesses. ??As an example, he stepped down from jubilee metals as at that time he felt a more suitable candidate with different set of skills would be better for them in the next phase of their evolution as a company. CB admitted his skills were more appropriate to companies which are at an earlier stage of their development.

He has vast experience needed to grow xtract into a ‘sustainable’ mining and exploration company, now that the company is at a pivotal point in its own development. There will be increasing, positive cash flow to sustain that growth now.

Aeris post from last Saturday 20.07
>>>The RNS mentions that a 250 tonne bulk sample is being analysed at Kabwe. Possibly at Jubilee’s Sable plant

Spot on Aeris, mett test work completed by Jubilee metals group. The new presentation states they have ‘agreed’ with Kabwe refinery to process and sell the ore too.

Sceptics need not be sceptical

I tracked down Oval’s head office to a portacabin in a storage facility so just called their number. A nice lady said the boss was unavailable for comment but there was ‘nothing to be concerned about.’ She said the boss is currently p155ing it up in the Bahamas and will get him to give me a call back on his return.
So that’s really encouraging!

You’re welcome
Guy

From the Kakuyu JV agreement?>>reimburse US$90,000 to Oval in respect of stripping and mining to date on the Kakuyu Project, to be settled from cash flow by the reduction of Xtract's percentage share of net profit from 60% to 20% for the period required to reimburse Oval.

Appears Xtr have paid back Oval the cash for pre strip and previous mine work directly up front. Rather than taken from cash flow.

From ‘23 presentation
Xtract refunded US$90k to JV partner for historic pre- stripping work and a further US$60k for the first month of pre-production mining. Recouped from cash flow

Could be construed as showing there is a good business rapport already between xtr and oval. As of first cash flow now, it would suggest xtr would now receive full 60% net profit from start up as opposed to reduction to 20% during payback to Oval. Has made for a simpler process but shows good will too from xtract.

The extra $60k comes from a ‘separate’ mining contract agreement with Oval paid up front for the initial start up which is recouped from cash flow too.

Should that be PFS Andrew ?
Just checking

Hi Steve you’re not missing anything, just the usual, good disciple bad disciple stuff, same stuff different days.

Granted gixxer my only response on Kalengwa is that it was mined alright for 12 odd years beforehand. Economics of it would be swings and roundabouts comparatively then and now of course, but the reason given it was subordinated, was its remoteness and lack of power, so for all we know they could be waiting for copper price to rise, and or the company being in a stronger financial position and when more company resources become available. As we know they have been concentrating all in house efforts on BR which may explain why Kalengwa was deemed to be not as important.

Just a theory that does hold some credibility.

>Proper DD is done to ensure that you know that the partner is not dodgy or in debt !

You would really have to be cynical to believe their DD was not done correctly. At the time up to signing you would certainly hope all was well.

It is ‘only’ a presentation and >>>does not constitute, or form part of, an admission document, listing particulars, a prospectus, a circular or any other documents relating to the Company.

It certainly doesn’t supersede the latest in RNS statement that no further was done there pending consideration of options for possible future development.

That’s not particularly enticing for new investors, to showcase a project that is parked up for whatever reason. So prob best not jump the gun and assume it is dead and buried just as Kalengwa is not either.
 

Is very likely the deal between xtr and KPZ has soured opposed to potential returns from Eureka after the fallout from Kalengwa They were production ready to resume transferring ore for processing at Eureka after all.
Kajevo yes, was dud after only sporadic mineralisation came back so it switched focus onto Eureka.

Can’t blame their DD process for a partner being dodgy and in debt. (A big if so - granted)

Otherwise is a good up to date presentation.

-LoM Extension drilling at Manica finally scheduled in for first quarter.
-Confirmed we are now receiving 23% of op cash flow.
-Kakuyu is close to receiving immediate cash flow.
-in ‘process’ of acquiring further small scale ops and persuing others.

From growth potential of small scale mining ops.
>Opportunity to convert small-scale mining operation into longer- term larger scale operation that can justify a stand-alone processing plant.

Could be just adding both the high grade parts of RC and Ascot together then mistakenly adding that 225mt total high grade to the 512mt JORC total of RC which is 737mt The total of both JORC is 599mt

Iceberg alluded to the fact that a major will only pay for what is included in the JORC.
So it would be an assumption then that all the 2mtCuEq would have to be drilled out to be included in the JORC to trigger the buy back.

Agreement does state a valuation will be in accordance with JORC and Valmin code.

In that podcast from 19/12/21 CB mentions they might decide to drill the part of the resource that didn’t have enough drill hole information to support the tonnage, (unJORC’ed) This could be additional to the JORC, if not to upgrade. But they can push the margins out further as stated to increase too.

>>>The Measured Group report also concluded that, as the mineralisation increases in grade and width down plunge, the area north and down plunge of the currently defined mineralisation is a clear exploration target and represents an opportunity to significantly increase tonnage

Think was estimated an additional 2-300mt possible plus additional from Ascot.

Good spot Aeris, thanks, apologies for misleading, not intentional.

CB’s comments in podcasts aside, there are forward looking passages in various RNS showing a clear enough pathway from early on, for exploration to show a viable resource. I don’t doubt though that CB has just used the 2mt as a hook to ramp the project to keep any dilution down and in the hope of reaching that trigger point first, to see what AA wanted to do. Not in one single RNS has it stated any desire to get to 2mt!
I really don’t understand why he was so adamant that 2mt was in the bag though, other than to continually ramp as there were ‘maybe’ uncertainties as to fairbride income forthcoming at that time. Further dilution etc.

12jul 21>> The Phase Two programme is designed primarily to follow up on the results obtained by Anglo American Exploration Australia Pty Ltd ("Anglo") in 2014 and 2015 and to define further the shallower part of the Resource with a view to possible development of a large open pit.

12aug 21 >> We are also very pleased that the New South Wales authorities have indicated their intention to grant renewal of the Racecourse exploration licence to June 2024. This will allow us to undertake all the work necessary to define the conceptual open pit and to identify further deposit extensions, as well as investigating other prospects within the licence area."

Thats about right LW, the death by a thousand lashes I was somewhat sceptical though. I agree I was initially swept along as you say but there has always been opposing or conflicting comments made too, in many podcasts and RNS. Like “I’m not stopping short of a billion tonnes” from an early podcast and from way back in ‘21 AGM “We are looking at s couple of small JVs in Zambia that will contribute to the drilling efforts in Oz”. There have been others too that pointed to a much longer journey than implied otherwise. I always felt he was giving us plenty of clues.

When I researched deeper it started to sink in, such as how funding needs to be in place to cover contractual obligations for an exploration phase, how resources need to be defined, delineated and at what data spacing points are required for infilling to reach the next JORC resource upgrade. How a drill programme is planned and executed to maximise the potential of not only budget but also to best reach the next key decision point to understand geologically what needs to come next. It’s a long methodical process.

The deal is to reach 2 million actual words or I can declare a decision to mime

>>As you are so fond of taking what CB says at face value then do tell, how you feel your timing was bad??
Like many gixxer, I bought into xtr for BR after the dead cat bounce from the first big spike. Beforehand I did some basic research into the company etc but my main reason was locational so was comfortable enough to understood what I was buying into. I am still happy with my many purchases at those times. But like many I allowed myself to get swept along with CB without fully evaluating the bigger picture of just how much work, money and time goes into proving a viable resource.

No, I’m paid per word ;-)