Member Info for howezap

A very plausible sounding synopsis joeman which have noted so thank you

>>It is important to recognize that the cutoff grade is not simply calculated to a definitive answer. It is in fact a strategic variable that has major implications on mine design. The cutoff grade is adapted as the economic environment changes with regard to metal prices and mining costs, and is therefore constantly changing.

Hi Steve hope you are good mate, I doubt you are deliberately misinterpreting icebergs analysis. So are you just trying too hard now and your judgement is being clouded by your desire to be proved right.

The 71mt JORC has a 0.3 cut off simply because the average grade is a lot higher due it being the central higher grade part of the overall resource. It is a a lot easier and cheaper to process the higher grade at a higher economic cut off. As more of the lower grades are now included in the updated JORC, the economic cut off will come down.
?Iceberg >>Just to make it completely clear the unclassified resource is the resource model which was of insufficient information to be included in the JORC.

We are back to swings and roundabouts again I think until the economic model is out.

Steve>> What XTR have done is take the ore that was not good enough to get into the old JORC with a 0.3% cut-off, but apparently is good enough to get into the new one with a 0.1% cut-off.<<

The ore that is not included in the JORC resource , that makes up the resource model is ‘not’ just the low grade below the cut off grade. It is the resource that has not been drilled sufficiently enough to have the necessary degree of confidence, and is made up of a whole range of grades.
?

The 8% I believe was just a figure they could aim for as an opening gambit.

Could up to 50p be a realistic target value per share return for BR?

Certainly will depend on a positive NPV and at a reasonable copper price.
There is the viability to include Ascot in the model and how that could affect the financial evaluation. The percentage of in ground value an acquirer will be asked to pay could be much higher than the minimum values of around 1.5% much touted here. All the contributing factors will likely be at the top of their ranges. Jurisdiction, geographical and possibly ecological landscape, type of mining operation and the ease that it can be dug out the ground, determined in part from the strip ratio.

Then there is being in a stronger position to negotiate on open market outside the terms of the agreement if AA do pass up their option.

If we are all still here, then together we must still have confidence so can we at least, show some positivity leading into the final furlong?

Hi Dani I know you have been fairly critical of iceberg previously, particularly surrounding the valmin code value range, saying this on 7th sept,
>> You are an insider to the acquirer or trying to get people to sell out of extract way before it's reached. It's maximum value.
?with a later post on the 9th stating,
>> I give credit where credit is due. Iceberg's input and knowledge in geology and his interpretation of the RNS is second to none. He put XTR on the investor map and gave LTHolder's, myself included, renewed hope in XTR and that Bushranger would create massive value for us shareholders.

Can you elaborate further on your angle from todays post please? Am interested what you have to say being an AGM attendee.

A point shared Steve and Andrew, I have always kept single minded in the confidence in my own research to be optimistic on overall, a successful outcome. That still hasn’t changed or wavered.

Was certainly dumfounded, not only at first when the suggested comparisons in the old and new JORC were bought up. But also the evaluation could be, so fatally flawed.

Thanks to iceberg for his blog update to set things a lot clearer on why that evaluation was wrong and the suggestion that a significant increase that the ore that wasn’t drilled enough to be included in the updated JORC, will add to the resource model.

One question, can any assumptions be made from this extra ore that is not in the updated JORC to be included in the new financial evaluation along side the updated JORC this time, as the company needs to take it toward a PFS?

Or do they simply not need to?

Couldn’t help but smile when the commentator said, “PSG have got a ‘buy back agreement’ with Eindhoven for their wonderkid Xavi Simons when he came on as a sub in the Ned v USA game.

Hope ‘he’ is as good as they make him out to be and he scores a shed load of goals to trigger his buy back mechanism to play for a ‘major.’

Unless of course PSG have a one time opportunity, (before it falls away) to exercise the buy back wether the opportunity comes through scoring a shed load of goals or before he makes a ‘decision to retire’ at about 35 if he has the economic viability to do so.

Lucky b@$%#¥+

Futures seeing a boost with more positivity of expectations that are increasing across a broader range of fronts.

Copper futures rose above $3.8 per pound, approaching the 4-month high of $3.9 hit November 11th, supported by hopes of a pickup in industrial demand and looming supply concerns. Expectations of demand for industrial inputs in the US improved after Fed Chair Powell signaled that the central bank may slow the pace of rate hikes this month, while the PBoC cut its reserve ratio by 25bps to stimulate the economy. In the meantime, Chinese authorities lifted a ban on equity refinancing for listed property developers, shortly after the country’s top banks extended $162 billion in fresh credit lines for the sector. On the supply side, lower output in South America continues to raise concerns of shortages in the near future, as top producer Chile mined 6% less copper in 2022, and mine protests in Peru hamper production. Commodity trader Trafigura warned that global copper stocks have fallen to record lows, with current inventories enough to supply world consumption for just 4.9 days.

* tradingeconomics.com

Really wouldn’t like to guess what algorithm is used to compile the list of top rampers. I yes jamesiecakes, a pathetic 144th is only 10 places above FatherTedFeck and humbogumbo
Must try harder James ;-))

The list is like a who’s who, I can remember most from top half and many others.

One thing that has come out from steves demolition derby is that I have discovered that pumped or dumped ,com is a complete load of tosh!

I am only second place of all xtract posters!!!
But congrats to Andrew4444 for the number one slot ;-)))

Ironically, I believe Andrew is probably one of the most trusted and respected posters here, with a measured approach to optimism always on the air of caution and usually backed up by the facts.

A week or two old now, now dust has settled.

Copper futures rose above $3.6 per pound from the two-week low of $3.57 touched on November 21st, as measures to stimulate construction and industrial activity coincided with looming supply concerns. Authorities in top consumer China lifted a ban on equity refinancing for listed property developers, shortly after the country’s top banks extended $162 billion in fresh credit lines for the sector. Additionally, the PBoC cut its reserve ratio by 25bps after rapidly increasing covid cases in the country drove the government to trigger strict lockdowns and business curbs. Concerns of upcoming shortages also supported copper futures to hover nearly 15% above the 20-month low of $3.2 hit in July. Commodity trader Trafigura warned that global copper stocks have fallen to record lows, with current inventories enough to supply world consumption for just 4.9 days. Freeport-McMoran was also vocal about shortage risks, stating that low prices do not reflect the tightness of the physical market.

• tradingeconomics.com

From Steve’s own post.

RE: Cheery post.
23 Oct 2022 15:43
>>I was at the AGM. Colin stated something to the effect that he wanted AA to say no, so we could go to the wider market, and AA would have 30 days to decide once we stated the 'decision to mine'.<<

Bewildered and somewhat dumbfounded that with the amount of drilling to RC has come up this short.

Could we be seeing a bit of resource manipulation?

Best lie low for a bit Steve, instead of continuing to justify your actions. Of course, you have a right as any to share your findings, but in light of todays significant drop and the fact that you have sold up before releasing it. You are not helping the situation.
Are you a smart ar5e with a Funked up moral compass?
I don’t believe you are for one minute, but it’s how you are maybe coming across to others.
You’ve sold up and shared you reasons for doing so. Leave it there Steve.

Same podcast different link
https://www.share-talk.com/colin-bird-executive-chairman-of-xtract-resources-xtr-l-interview/

Gixxer just for info
Earliest mention I’ve got link for of the magical 2mt back in April ‘21 at end of phase 1

@5min10

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/share-talk-ltd/id1093206470?i=1000516000961

Well put Andrew.
My only concern is the comment that we need to, “show them that we are moving toward financing.” Hence my earlier posts. Maybe I’m being too pessimistic and there is a clear path now to an end.
Listening back again, it’s was the show us you got a feasibility study comment that Stevem originally picked up on that made me doubt what I initially thought to then look at the worst case scenario. But on reflection I think his, ‘A’ feasibility study comment simply referred to an appropriate pfs.

Hi BL
We are tied into the agreement that is legally binding, it is designed to give AA first refusal but is not weighted in their favour. It gives us and them optionality, with a process toward a conclusion that will be followed in accordance with the agreement terms if they both cannot come to an agreed value. So trigger the process with DtM otherwise the only way to be free from it is if AA decide to let Xtract be freed from it basically.

Why not LW? For the suggestion of both resources to be utilised in the mining study twice in the RNS would certainly imply a positive outlook for either the 1.5km bit between rc and ascot to be of economic grade or that ascot could be mined simultaneously to share processing capability.
Got the impression Colin was itching to confirm something but opted for a bit of obvious reverse psychology in saying “I’m going to be negative in saying…….” With CB it’s sometimes not what he actually says but why he says it.