Member Info for howezap

Hi Eastern, I do think the main arguable point being is that CB has done a ‘necessary’ job in keeping shareholders interested with heightened expectations to get the market cap as high as possible to minimise share dilution from the fund raises that were had in ‘21 and any subsequent needed to follow on with a third phase. Potentially why he continued to suggest that the 2mt was achievable well into Q3 ‘22 as there were no guarantees up to a certain point that Fairbride was going to go into production.

There is no doubt the global economic downturn has been the single most contributing factor to the share price drop through ‘22 and in part, toward the market reaction when resource statements were released, along with the resulting disappointment from CB’s previous rhetoric of not seeing the 2mt.

With more income now from Africa, we do seem to already be seeing, and hope to continually see, a more pragmatic approach with reporting from CB as there should not be any further need to exaggerate optimism, particularly ‘If,’ the treasury can support the next drilling and other technical work required to get to the next decision point.

>>>Either way seems they are only interested in rampy comments

Exactly, I really don’t see the benefit, which is why I have never bothered. I understand it is actually a good platform as you can post pictures and charts etc to share research. But without, I would guess any challenging opposing views that create healthy debate which is normal on a public forum. It is not for me.

Much prefer the amateurish forum fodder we get here from rinsing as much as possible out of another of CB’s puzzling comments from the latest paid for promotional podcast.

In jest of course, p issed again

>>>CB having a PR drive of his various companies, with podcasts in fairly quick succession- ?Kendrick 1st feb ?Galileo 3rd feb ?African pioneer 6th feb

Another Galileo podcast this morning, who’s next??

Tick Tock

Sub 2p or not, It's not about the current sp, as an investor it should always be what is achievable from asset potential and Market capitalisation.

Hi zaphoid thanks for sharing the geo for investors article. What I found of interest, being a part time eco warrior and environmentalist was this….

>>>Environmental protection, permits (legal and social), and the eventual closure of the mine must all be considered during this phase (PFS)<<

An Environmental Impact Assessment is a requirement to ‘allow’ continued development and for during the eventual mining of the ore reserves. It usually involves ‘many’ specialist consultants from areas such as archaeology to flora and fauna to potentially geo hydrology as there is a stream that crosses the deposit that would potentially have to be diverted or other.

Its aim, will be to show a baseline for a company to monitor and manage its environmental impact on the ecology, the environment, as well as on the local community throughout development and operational stages.

However, an EIA is usually carried out prior to a definitive feasibility study as is not a necessity at Pre feasibility level, so is unlikely one will be required by Xtract as the project is looking to be sold after a PFS and not be further developed.

Only mention, as EIA’s are rather expensive as will be the PFS, which I believe could be a trimmed down version that focuses more on the economics and mine planning phases. Just a hunch could be wrong.

I do get your point Andrew, but it ultimately comes down to wether or not funding will be in place for the next leg up in resource from income. If so then it wouldn’t necessarily require that anticipated increase in copper, as there will not be a need to keep dilution at a minimum from any further raise. Keeping shareholders happy would come a distant second if there was not a need to come to them with the begging bowl.

Reporting income from fairbride semi annually could be a sign that at present, there are inadequate funds in the treasury to support a drill campaign yet???

The updated mining study due will be more or less be the preliminary economic assessment, which is basically just a snap shot of the current economic potential that will point to where improvements can be made to progress the project toward the next level. This updated study will not form the basis of any negotiation or subsequent valuation. It cannot support the economic assumptions required that a PFS will.

CB has been clear in stating AA will want to see hard numbers, and when the updated study due is released it will go onto PFS.

It is not a particularly rampy thing to say in the light of current sentiment as it implies far longer timescales now, than previously offered. So in that respect is certainly more believable than some of his previous comments on 2mt and such.

Copper is now considered to have recovered to an adequate level to support NPV that will be used toward the eventual process of valuation.

Considering the project will be looking to be worked toward pre feasibility, there will be a fairly comprehensive drill programme ahead required to support that and complete the further testing elsewhere that has been suggested.

At present there are only 50mt of indicated resource that can support an initial early mining phase to pay back CapEx and show profitability. Indicated or measured resources can ‘only’ be considered toward a PFS.

The reasons for waiting any longer to release what is, an updated study would be on the premise that fairbride has not or is not reaching expected production levels. To build up from revenue and have the funds in place to cover the contractual obligations of a further drilling programme. Or, ominously to see a further fund raise if that income is not as expected.

Once again depends on wether you are a half glass empty or half glass full kind of person. ;-)

It was only 4 months back on 30th September that it was stated in half year report prior to the resource statements being released, that the updated study was due by end of ‘22.

They have likely been dragging it out and the study is already completed. They would have benefitted from waiting, until now, as market conditions, particularly precious metals are showing to be increasing in demand. Hence early into ‘23 the recent forecast.

Maybe soon, after CB has rounded up operational updates across his other companies. It will allow him to concentrate then, on plugging the updated mining study with hopefully a webinar presentation to showcase the project.

It’s an important news release for the project and the company after 2 years since drilling commenced in Oz. Let’s hope the market likes it.

>>generally remained true to facts.

Sorry that’s nonsense what I meant to say was the company have generally remained on track with ‘aims’ that have been stated in those RNS

>>Its a case of being honest with his shareholders !

I fully understand your reasoning LW although in response I would say is that ‘all’ information released to the market via RNS is honest and generally remained true to facts.

There is no reason to remove Kalengwa from the website as it technically it is still on the company books , they have just parked it up for whatever reason, to prioritise other activities elsewhere. Costs spent have been stated as being impaired, it doesn’t mean these have been written off either.

The website was updated with some new pictures of Fairbride only a few weeks ago! And besides, If you consider the flip side of the coin, there could simply be an air of confidence in the company and are happy with current development of assets and don’t feel the need to drip feed the market with constant bits and bobs.
CB is damned if they do and damned when they don’t.

CB having a PR drive of his various companies, with podcasts in fairly quick succession-
Kendrick 1st feb
Galileo 3rd feb
African pioneer 6th feb

By the weekend could he have rounded up the rest with Bezant and Xtract following release of the updated study one wonders!

Edit. Sorry, shortly after the high court judge dismissed the application to dismiss the 2019 injunction the results of XRF were released. The Court papers were handed over some time after on site. Does not change the observation though as I’m sure the company would have been aware of the application.

Just an observation….
Shortly after the conjunction was restored with the handover on site of court papers, Xtract published the xrf results from the 6 previous recon holes drilled.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/reconnaissance-drilling-results-kalengwa-kafeqtwin222tiy.html

Colin Bird, Executive Chairman said: "Our JV agreement for the Kalengwa pit area allows us to mine and process material 500m either side of the old open pit……….

Just seems an odd comment to state, like he is distancing the company from any wrong doing on Xtracts part at least.

>> I cannot believe the Xtract BOD are ‘anything’ but blameless.

Ask yourself if it is likely that uk listed business would sink over 300k into a project that they ‘knew’ had a court directive in place that stopped all mining and exploration activities?
Doesn’t make sense, gotta be legal proceedings if is the case. Could be a way to leverage greater control or toward a overall buy out of eureka??

Just looking a bit further into the kalengwa saga if is of interest to any unfamiliar with what’s gone on.

Initial reports in Zambian media of the mining/exploration ownership dispute, where there was a response to the market by xtract in oct ‘20

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/comment-regarding-zambia-media-reports-ydfyagthppx9udd.html

Below is what followed in ‘21 shortly after Xtract had drilled 6 recon holes.

https://m.facebook.com/themastzambia/posts/euro-africa-kalengwa-mine-director-warns-kpz-directors-of-contemptby-staff-repor/2988142031443834/

The one stand out bit is that the lawyers of KPZ were aware of the 2019 caveat that stopped any activities at the mining site.

Once trust has been compromised in business ……
I cannot believe the Xtract BOD are ‘anything’ but blameless

There’s probably more to do with the JV with kpz than Kalengwa itself. It was mined originally for over ten years without power or haulage issues and is reported to have some of the highest grades in Zambia. KPZ having massive debts could be a clue.

Sometimes 5hit ’appens, a project success-failure ratio of 4 or 5-1 was mentioned. Hope is, it does not have a knock on effect with Eureka being under the same JV partner. So to drop Kalengwa with the hope eureka can be kept or bought out as is far more progressed being production ready, proven scope to extend existing pit along strike and at depth and has had more cash spent on exploration and development than on kalengwa.

Hopefully some good will come out of this. I don’t think you can blame CB until the real facts, are known regarding the relationship with kpz

The most significant comment on about 10 mins was if you look at the open pit at Kakuyu , there are grades of 25%, 10% an average of 3.5% but as these are smaller resources with shorter mine life the grades compensate for that. So particularly where the potential discovery of a new ore body to the NE of the existing pit that displays the same composition from sampling that showed a significant copper in soil anomaly. Is great for the potential longevity of mining operations to continue there over many many more years.

Getting these foot holds now in these fertile regions is testament to CB’s business acumen, with the ability and clout to make these deals in line with Xtract’s growth strategy.

The roast boys report back from their jolly in Africa. Xtract’s new JV acquisition Kakuyu gets a couple of plugs in first 15 mins from their guide Martyn churchouse, who is or was a company consultant with oversight of exploration and mine development programmes covering multiple targets and resources in Africa. He has just been appointed MD for one of CB’s other companies, Kendrick resources.

https://podcasts.google.com?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hdWRpb2Jvb20uY29tL2NoYW5uZWxzLzUwNjQ0MzcucnNz&episode=dGFnOmF1ZGlvYm9vbS5jb20sMjAyMy0wMi0wNTovcG9zdHMvODI0MjEwOQ%3D%3D