Member Info for howezap

Andrew >>BR can still be viable (i think it will) but the pathway to that viability may not be the way CB has implied.

That is really on point, the irony is, although is still obviously arguable, if investors and the market were only subject to official RNS and company presentations to evaluate BR in particular , maybe with just the occasional podcast to ‘educate’ at key points throughout and ‘without’ the constant podcasts and over optimism. The market would ‘not’ have been under any illusion and potentially have seen a far less bumpy ride and now hold a stronger investor base and market cap in comparison at this stage.

But …. the big question in that respect then would be, wether the fundraise for phase 2 would have seen far more dilution for shareholders? So a rampy, over saturated PR drive to increase exposure and increase market cap running up to a raise can of course be forgiven. But, a precedent is then set from then on! We can’t have it both ways, but that is not to say, PR could not have been handled better.

Overall, you sum up perfectly
>>That doesnt mean we wont get there in the end and that he wont deliver success - but not in the pathway he is implying.

Your advice is good advice Andrew, CB’s reputation is only as good as his last success. And being in a very risky sector for explorers and investors alike, where any real project success is very often so few and far between. That success is even harder to come by within a particular company. So his reputation is easily questionable, as well as his interview style of over egging targets and timescales that has eventually done more harm than good.

But, on wether BR is going to be viable,it is not a fair comment to suggest that CB’s is “giving his aspirations for and best case scenarios, which are ‘unlikely’ to happen.” Now both resource statements are out with the relevant grades and tonnages that have significantly reduced how speculative the economic evaluation ‘could’ look.

Fairbride going into production has seen eventual success.

I also think something that CB had said in a recent podcast was obviously not overlooked, but the implications of what he had said and why he would have even said it, i think has missed point.

CB - “We get the conceptual study back and then we’ll go to pre feasibility.”

That is a bold statement to make when the updated conceptual mining study is not complete yet, as is currently having Ascot integrated into the economic assessment.

JORC resource updates generally coincide with a subsequent study and these are key project decision points to understand what to do next. The economic assessment in the study that is being produced at the moment will only determine if the project has ‘potential’ to be economically viable.

So for CB to already imply it will go to PFS must indicate they already have a good idea or know, of BR’s potential economic viability.

Did feel it was a more casual comment, and maybe not even an intentional one.
So in essence of why he said it it could be very encouraging.

That was the point that CB was trying to make in recent podcast lucky, the remaining open pitable resource at 0.22 processed down to a 0.1 cut off will only carry its own variable operational costs once CapEx is paid for. Not too dissimilar to what Bollidens Aitik mine in Sweden is mining. $200m was a rough figure of annual ‘profit’ from the remaining 15-20 year mine life if recall correctly.
If it wasn’t for the high grade cores the project would have far less chance to be economically viable.

Hi ZM I’m no doubt being really naive in thinking the roast boys have any professional integrity to uphold lol
Cheers

The roast boys were as disappointed as any to now see a potential sale date slip further away than was implied. Being pushed back has nowt to do with the current economic climate, that’s not an excuse. I believe we were always going to see the latest anticipated timescale as they were clearly persuing the decision to mine at RC, targeting what was only open pittable. There was indications from some assays that deeper porphyry were underlying (without checking back can’t recall which holes) so was there a genuine expectation that 2mt could have been reached from just open pittable depths? It was clearly Colin being hopeful on that trigger point, using it to rally the market and consequently, when 2mt didn’t materialise, the negative market reaction followed.

So it’s expected really that the roast boys have dropped xtract as they too, probably feel they have been led on as there were keen to get it sold comments. So to promote it for 23 against the markets reaction would show bias and smack of partiality. Not great for their credibility.

Just to add NSW are actively involved in reducing emissions with a climate and energy action plan.

https://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/nsw-plans-and-progress/major-state-projects/shift-renewables

If the project advances to pre feasibility study level, this will asses many different elements including technologies and environmental and social impacts.

Showing the potential of, and more so the importance of a low carbon footprint, will add more clout to CB’s rhetoric of the importance of jurisdiction.

Interesting analysts view on how better environmental, in particular, and also social and government acceptances of new mines will have on the these projects lower carbon footprints that will ‘trump’ just strong economic projects where there isn’t high voltage power already available for example, so with no solar and wind power to balance the grid. So less option for electric drills, loaders and trucks that will impact the carbon footprint that will ultimately influence obtaining mining permits for new world mines. So it would certainly imply that BR, which does have a HV power line close by and is in a politically stable jurisdiction with good social acceptance and a government that supports mining could be well sought after.

From 15min30 sec but interesting throughout

https://youtu.be/nKM3gzMC4OY

>>As we know they plan to target the high grade crown this will likely upgrade in part to indicated to support the financial model which a solely inferred resource would not <<< as is far too speculative.

There is no suggestion in the Racecourse resource estimate as to where the 50mt indicated part is located. To wether or not it will support the economic evaluation of the high grade core. As last post, only indicated can convert to probable ore reserve that a PFS can be based on.

Been digging a bit through past pre feasibility studies from various projects. Caravels Bindi was mentioned earlier but is far more advanced than BR with a majority measured JORC 2012 classification. So trawled back through others to find a more comparative project in terms of its evolution. Went back to Josemaria initial pre feasibility study 2018. Very similar, just different continent, as the project is in Argentina. SRK consultancy Canada, completed the study so resource is classified under Canada’s reporting standard, so is second to none.

What’s interesting is that they had converted their inferred/ indicated resource to a probable ore reserve which the 2018 pre feasibility study was based on.

>>>The mineral resource estimate for Josemaría, assuming open pit mining methods is reported using the 2014 CIM Definition Standards. Indicated and Inferred classifications only have been estimated; no measured mineral resources were classified.

>>>Mineral reserves were classified using the 2014 CIM Definition standards. Indicated mineral resources were converted to probable mineral reserves by applying the appropriate modifying factors – those being dilution (5%) and ore loss (1%). There are no measured resources and thus no proven reserves. Cut-off grades (as net smelter return) were applied to both prime mill feed ($4.95/t) and stockpiled ore ($5.95/t) to designate mineral reserve from waste.<<<

This taken from Canada’s CIM classification (definition standards)
>> An Indicated Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to a Measured Mineral Resource and may only be converted to a Probable Mineral Reserve.

Taken from JORC code
>>> An Indicated Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to a Measured Mineral Resource and may only be converted to a Probable Ore Reserve.

Exactly the same inputs so is not looking likely that any of the resource will be required to be measured as first thought. As we know they plan to target the high grade crown this will likely upgrade in part to indicated to support the financial model which a solely inferred resource would not.
Happy days.

Pinocchio >>> muddling the 2M Cu in resource with 'decision to mine' and trying to pretend that it was always one or the other.

It has actually ‘always’ been either option. Probably the more serious option with the 2mt being the preferred PR hook to get the necessary fundraise for phase 2. In the first team presentation webinar that came out prior to the initial conceptual mining study, Jeremy Reid clearly says, if that study shows that, “An open pit looks to be strongly economic, then the board of xtract decide to proceed into an open pit mine, that would then trigger 1 of those 2 options for Anglo.”

It states it as clear as night and day in the buy back agreement in the Bushranger presentation on the website too. As well as the simple fact that they commissioned the first conceptual mining study anyway, as there was a propensity for an open pit mine due to the shallow and inclined nature of the porphyry from the offset.

Most folk don’t believe what Colin says, why would they believe anything a stranger on a public board says? Even if that stranger was said to be a professional. Bottom line, there are no excuses for not doing your own basic research and understanding to draw one’s own conclusions. Let’s keep it factual Pinocchio. And btw you forgot to copy and paste in my winky face at the end of my obvious sarcastic quote ;-)

I won’t say ‘you’re welcome’ Butlerman as I could have misread CB’s comments regarding a PFS and am wrong. Don’t believe I have, in which case it could well imply then that, some of the higher grade core may need to convert to indicated and part measured as this is what will be mined first and a PFS is intended for.

>>>………we can maximise the early cash flows by mining the higher grade 191Mt core to the deposit at rates up to 25Mpta.

· The Racecourse Mineral Resource contains 50Mt @ 0.25% CuEq which has been classified as Indicated in accordance with JORC (2012)

· A higher-grade core of the Racecourse mineralisation extends from near surface to relatively shallow depths and contains 191Mt (inferred) @ 0.33% CuEq, reported at a cut-off of 0.2% CuEq
* From RC resource estimate RNS

No more BS Colin, we need transparency in what’s ‘required,’ if xtract is to attract new investors and shake off the markets negative perception. And also stop amateurs drawing their own flawed conclusions from over researching when there is constant uncertainty ;-)

Hi Butlerman it’s not likely to be the case that ‘no’ more drilling is required even if the PEA comes back very favourable. As per the requirement for the decision to mine, stated by CB, they will want to see a PFS, and mineral resource inputs required state clearly that it will need some of the resource at least to be measured. So some extra infill is a necessity in that respect.

A PEA or scoping study determines if a project has potential to be economically viability. A pre-feasibility study determines whether a probable mineral reserve ‘is’ economically viable and a feasibility study determines whether the reserve can be economically mined.

https://mining.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/img_59a7468ece12f.png

So is likely the PFS may be required for only the initial early mining phase to show recovery of CapEx.

That’s my understanding unless someone can advise otherwise.

They throw in the disclaimer at the beginning of each and every interview, “ Nothing in this podcast is intended as investment advise and the people in this podcast may hold positions in the stocks they talk about…..” They can all then, pretty much say what they want.

The jury is still out on wether the project is viable, but I’m sure ‘if’ and when BR is sold, wether that be in ‘23 or ‘24, that, will ultimately be CB’s saving grace, ‘nothing less.’ Even if it’s sold for less than individuals own expectations, would those individuals be too disappointed with only making, for example, 4 times their capital investment instead of maybe the many more multiples anticipated by them, from CB’s past rhetoric on quantity, and timescales too!

AFP and Xtract amongst the 12 stocks last year. Already this year the picks so far, have included AFP again, and Galileo from the CB stable. Interested to see if the roast boys have lost any of their confidence and in their support for Xtract to include this year.

Still 6 more to go.

ZM >>>I, for one, would like to see a share consolidation as a penny stock with 860million shares in issue does present a rather less than serious image, and points to a history of multiple cash calls.<<

Thank you for the response, that was my original rationale ZM. If and when the company does cement that position to be self funding with positive cash flow then it’s likely at some point there will also be up to a billion shares in issue. So a share consolidation ‘after’ full dilution would certainly represent more a reflective image once that ‘potential’ financial position is achieved and with the stable of quality assets and the potential they all hold.

Certainly with some luck and continued good strategy, can see mid cap potential as Xtracts development as producer and an explorer grows.

Quick fire summary update is reflected by copper futures continued uncertainty. But with supply shortages, its expected to see the copper price rise next year at least. Then once global demand ramps up then it will surely see copper rise above all time high of $5.02 per pound in set in March 22.

Since the $4.62 lb previous high back in 2011, current copper price would need to hit roughly a minimum of $6 lb to be the same value taking into account, inflation adjustment and any erosion of the US dollar since 2011.

Copper futures are set to close December at $3.8 per pound, booking a 15% decline in the year as sharp recession concerns offset the looming supply worries for the metal, a key gauge for global economic activity. Soaring Covid cases and an unstable, debt-ridden property market in top consumer China pressured the world’s second-largest economy and reduced demand for industrial inputs in the year, underscored by the NBS showing contraction in Chinese factory activity for seven months of the year. Still, looming shortage worries limited declines and ramped up expectations for higher prices in 2023. Output from top producer Chile slid 6.7% in the first three quarters of the year, while mine protests in Peru added to low production. Commodity trader Trafigura warned that global copper stocks have fallen to record lows, with current inventories being enough to supply world consumption for just 4.9 days. Also, mining giant Glencore estimated a supply shortfall of 50 million tonnes in 2023.
* trading economics.com

If the company is seen to be a serious investment opportunity for more wealthy individuals and influential investors. To also attract more attention from market analysts. ‘A favourable view from analysts is excellent marketing for the company.’ Which in turn means they would be more likely to pop up on the radars of bigger institutional investors. Particularly if xtract can take that leap foreword as a profit making company and sustain a strong positive cash flow with the financial demands of current assets.

What are the possibilities of, or the likelihood of a ‘Reverse Stock Split’ otherwise known as share consolidation?

Say a 10-1 consolidation. It would raise the profile above being a penny stock as a higher share price would attract more attention from market analysts. Yes, a consolidation does carry a negative connotation and could be just seen as an accounting gimmick, but not if the company is showing positive cash flow.

Could there be a strategic advantage if is timed appropriately?

How would a consolidation affect the ability of MM’s to create or manipulate liquidity?

Would it reduce volatility?

Maybe one for you NicetoMichu, value your opinion with experience on all things AIM.
Any informed opinions welcome please.

>>>Rinse and Repeat. Excite PI on a prospect and move onto next prospect.

What next prospect is that then?
Eureka I hope. But unlikely while the concentration is on BR. Not sure you understand the position the company are in now, with income from production side of the business that will sustain a positive cash flow to cover operational costs firstly, and then be able to grow the assets on the exploration side in terms of increasing current mineral reserves to extend LOM’s on the producing assets to bringing Bushranger closer to the global market, all the time increasing value with every drill and at every subsequent decision point.

I think any future fundraise would only be to keep the momentum the company will need to sustain the drive toward its current growth strategy. Wether that be to cover operational costs in the short term as fairbride ramps up, or for similar reasons to maybe have in place the cash in treasury needed, to cover the contractual costs of the next targeted campaign in Oz. But would hope there is enough in the treasury to avoid any further dilution.

I certainly don’t believe the company will just sit it out and wait for market conditions to change for the better, by parking up its most valuable asset, to simply move on to the next thing!
What tosh.

Global economic uncertainty is influencing ‘futures’ volatility but with Chinas shifting stance on how it is dealing with Covid is welcoming and could be very influential for that increase in demand for commodities.

Copper futures surged to $3.9 per pound level, the highest level since June 22nd, amid hopes of demand revival in China after the world's second-largest economy announced it would stop requiring inbound travelers to go into quarantine starting from January 8th. Elsewhere, prospects of lower copper production in South America continued to drive shortage concerns. Output from top producer Chile slid 6.7% in the first three quarters of the year, with mine protests in Peru stifling the activity. Commodity trader Trafigura warned that global copper stocks have fallen to record lows, with current inventories being enough to supply world consumption for just 4.9 days. Finally, mining giant Glencore estimated a supply shortfall of 50 million tonnes in 2023. Still, copper is down more than 11% so far this year, as global recession concerns mounted after major central banks delivered hawkish outlooks on monetary policy to curb inflation.
• tradingeconomics.com