Member Info for howezap

Pulled from Gixxer posting history is what CB said in the ‘removed’ portion at end of the shareholder presentation

Gixxer 29 Jun 2022 10:17??>>'If they can write to us and and say we wanna exercise our option and this is the value. We then have 10days to accept that, sorry 5 days. if we don;t accept it that's them now thrown their hat in the ring. And if we don't accept it we gotta go to a expert opinion. That expert I think he's got about 6 days, not a long time (that's another one of my worries that it might take forever) the expert opinion has gotta say what he thinks the value is. Now that's scary as well cause lets face it the capital is massive $1.5/2e9.' Goes on about the ValMin method.......??'Then there's that decision to mine, and you know I thought about that one (mumbles a bit) We'll do a couple of studies and we'll say to Anglo we've started to mine then they've got 10days to decide whether they want it. Then we give Anglo a value and they've got 10 days to say they don't accept the valve. then it's the same process again experts....'

Really good point Andrew, the only thing you could have maybe considered is CB’s obvious agenda in driving up the share price to take the fund raises at a higher market cap. This has been beneficial to to all shareholders, or will ultimately be to some degree. But yes, I agree this could be weighed up against future credibility of his predictions as rhetoric “if” there is a significant underestimation in eventual BR estimate.

We do understand that trust is already an issue for most that have been involved in CB projects before. We all hope that BR is that 1 in a 100 that goes on to be a mine that potential from exploration so far has shown. If it is sold in a reasonable timeframe then I’m sure all real investors will thank CB for managing to string them along that maybe would have got bored long ago and moved on. Missing out on what is still the best exploration story on LSE

Blimey guys, you don’t portray yourselves in the greatest light as the most astute investors. CB said this, CB said that, missed timelines, failed projects, tips from mates and using Twitter or any other social media platform in evaluating your positions Surely investors would not be here if they believed in his supposed rhetoric. You must have done your research when you are initially invested and I would hope continually re-evaluated your position at every turn. So if it is not sentiment that keeps us invested, it must be either FOMO or we actually have some faith in CB to make us money. You simply cannot use being underwater as an excuse, that you would lose too much if you sold up now. That just shows either fear of losing more elsewhere, a laziness to research other opportunities or an inability to spot value where there is undervalue in this, or another stock.

“I read on Twitter,” is the modern day equivalent of, “Some bloke down the pub said!” There is no substitute for doing your own research where our hard earned money is concerned. Taken from company website, presentations, published official news releases, and quality sources of general information, such a the internet, wikipedia, quiz nights, books of fun facts or my go to reliable source, my mate Mad Martin down the Newt and Cucumber. I have had some of my most wonderful opportunities in life that have stemmed from the pub. I met my first wife in the Newt, she came highly recommended to me with her phone number that was scrawled on the cubicle wall in the bogs.

Come to think of it, that ended quite badly. Just hope I don’t get 5hit on again

>>>I read some rumours on twitter last month..

Really! That says all you need to know about Colin’s stalker. Who clearly did not have a clue that exploration mining was risky when came on the scene a few years ago. What a shame that enthusiasm could not be put to better use.

As James has said they are, or were running the low grade peripheral stuff through to bed in the plant. This was found to be in the overburden that was stripped and not included in the ore reserve. So is all free anyway and said to be ideal for purpose. The output will increase when the hard rock starts being processed when all plant mods and tweaks have been made is my understanding too.

Another raise shouldn’t be a concern, if it’s timed right and is a genuine growth opportunity ie a substantial increase in returns from a phase 3 drill programme at RC or drilling for deep sulphides and pit extensions at Eureka. Further discovery potential at Fairbride and during next year will design plant additions, which will allow treatment of all mineralisation gold types found in the area.
Even the couple of, it sounds like mid sized operations they are looking at in Zambia. The aim is to identify deposits of 1-5 years production capability in a safe jurisdiction at a rate of about 50,000 tonnes per year, that are near to production and not too cash front end heavy and importantly nearby to offsite processing facilities. These are basically a license to print money.

If the conditions are right for a BR sale and the known geological understanding of other assets can be exploited, xtract could be a serious contender up there with jubilee with 3-400 million market cap in a couple or three years. Xtract have a solid foundation now, a sensible strategy for growth with good assets now across the board and will push to grow the company.

Colin stepped down from jubilee as he felt his skills were more suited to companies less advanced in their development. He must be setting his sights toward matching jubilee, he once commented he could see xtract having a 400million market cap. Who knows?

Shaun day said something that just compounded the drive for copper in the near future.

The fact is the world needs metals, and if you believe in the electrification, your safest bet is in copper as you are not betting on what the next technology will be in batteries, you are betting on the fact you need to conduct the electricity.

So even if we see Hydrogen cell vehicles having a massive upsurge in demand sooner than expected, these are still driven by electric motors and would no doubt carry some level of battery storage too.

There is no getting away from the need for copper even if fully electric cars turn out to be just a stop gap if miraculously they could convert all infrastructure to hydrogen refuelling stations in a few years.

Hi Butlerman
If Q4 revenue is much improved, better than Q3 it would potentially coincide with a conclusion to AA’s interest in the project. So no definitive decision on what to do next will happen until then. Even if they have a good idea of their intent already.

So if not until then, then potentially before, the resource statements would be delivered which the market will have waited for to de-risk. So to coincide with when commodities turn bullish it will be difficult to see the market cap stagnate with the kind of news due that will significantly improve the fundamentals of the company.

>>>Copper futures fell below $3.8 per pound from the five-month high of $4 hit on November 11th, pressured by concerns of lower demand. Data from top consumer China showed that industrial production slowed more than expected in October, while house prices decline for the sixth consecutive month and further emphasized low demand for the country's highly indebted property developers. Still, copper prices remain 11% higher since the start of November as looming supply concerns limited the retreat.<<<

We clearly haven’t seen that tipping point just yet. But when it does, if there is an opportunity to exit at 10-15p how many ‘investors’ will want to I wonder?

Just keep an open mind that’s all.

If you take overall the essence of what he is saying, about what to do with the geophysics, and the fact they haven’t been out with the begging bowl for a while yet. Could be a hint, there could be a further extensive exploration phase in the likelihood that AA may not want back in.

The company will always be looking to keep options open as long as possible and keep cards close to their chest anyway so wouldn’t read into anything at this time. As far as we know from official RNS the company are considering a third phase, so keep open minded with expectations for now I’d say.

The first hurdle is, and has always been the objective to get to one or both the trigger points as soon as possible to see if they want back in or not.
I doubt if that has changed.

When kiawara sold kalumbila it was probably the right thing to do at the time. But have always felt Colin was regretful not being able to advance the project further to have achieved a greater value. (In hindsight anyway. ) Colin may not want to see that happen with Xtract if there is scope to advance Bushranger further up that value curve. He wouldn’t be doing his job for shareholders if he undersold it.

Right now in this bear market even legitimate discoveries are not recognized. Mining stocks have been hammered down so much there is a disconnect between asset values and market caps. So you have to ask, ‘Is it not desirable?’” Or is it something people are just not seeing or they don’t have the guts to buy it right now.

Bushranger will probably be the biggest undeveloped resource in australia, bigger than Rio’s Winu. So If, for whatever internal or external reason AA don’t want back in, other big boys will be lining up for it.

Besides, with a current market cap of 30million!
Production income from hard rock and alluvials expected to be in the region of £10mpa for at least 6 years, would potentially give a forward PE ratio of 2?? Is justification enough to see a lot higher support level once meaningful income is reported.

When news starts dropping, especially on both fronts, the share price recovery will be swift

Commodity prices are purely driven by current demand. Historically the big producers live in the now, and is not likely to change any time soon.

Previous study analysis was that a positive NPV return could be achieved at a 0.15% Cu cut-off with a production rate of 20Mt per annum at a copper price of US$5 per lb. The Conceptual Study concluded that the Racecourse deposit may be economically recovered at a copper sales price above US$4 per lb.

This, all based on the inherited 71mt resource and stating that, opportunities exist to improve the economic viability by increasing the size of the Mineral resource in particular.

So until these figures at least show a positive NPV at or so many points below copper futures price, they will not get maximum value for shareholders.

There is no reason to suggest the updated mining study will not show a significantly improved range of forecasts based on the same scenarios as before.

That’s not to say you shouldn’t strap in…..or on (still don’t know which it is) this could fly anytime as fomo kicks in.

Last xtract interview from 24/09

https://podcasts.google.com?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hdWRpb2Jvb20uY29tL2NoYW5uZWxzLzUwNjQ0MzcucnNz&episode=dGFnOmF1ZGlvYm9vbS5jb20sMjAyMi0wOS0yNDovcG9zdHMvODE2Mjk5Mw%3D%3D

Sunday roast chewing the fat, putting the world to rights from 02/10

https://podcasts.google.com?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hdWRpb2Jvb20uY29tL2NoYW5uZWxzLzUwNjQ0MzcucnNz&episode=dGFnOmF1ZGlvYm9vbS5jb20sMjAyMi0xMC0wMTovcG9zdHMvODE2NzM0NA%3D%3D

From existing conceptual mining study - >>the modelling key assumptions were based on the Cadia Hill Copper-Gold Mine located some 75km northwest.<<

How bout that!

Porphyry are all about consistency in low grade and in bulk.

Also from existing study prior to all additional ore to be included from phases 1&2.
>> The Conceptual Study concluded that the Racecourse deposit contains significant low-grade tonnes of copper and gold which may be economically recoverable at copper sale prices above US$4/lb. Optimal believe that the economic recovery and processing of ore with low grades between 0.1 - 0.2% Cu is pivotal for the economic viability of the Racecourse project, with the sensitivity analysis showing that for each 0.05% drop in cut-off grade the NPV drops by as much as AU$341 million. Overall, Optimal believe that taking account of the project's large size and relatively low grade, conditions should support the efficient and productive mining of the deposit

I see our bigoted misogynist, Willy wet-legs Porv is back. The origins of that proverb is more suitable for you champ

>> If men only fought outwards into the world?women might be devoted and gentle.?The fight’s got to go in some direction.?But when men turn Willy wet-legs?women start in to make changes;?only instead of changing things that might be changed?they want to change the man himself?and turn the poor silk glove into a lusty sow’s ear.?And the poor Willy wet-legs, the soft silk gloves,?how they hate the women’s efforts to turn them?into sow’s ears!?The modern Circe-dom!

Touché!

Welcome back Ted, always a pleasure playing bat and ball with you mate.

Hi Cygnus, of course, that’s just as good a way as any, my point being that with an MRE a more realistic value can be attributed to Ascot toward that ‘overall’ value in response to a previous up in the air value of 2-3p for Ascot.

But what is true is that is probably is more reliable to guess the tonnages than to try and calculate dimensions of the ore bodies, as just adding 10’s of metres to variables changes the results wildly.

We’ve been here many times before! But it at least alleviates the boredom while waiting.

We’ve done RC to death now on estimates. What of Ascot then?

So with some rough calcs on Ascot taken from Google earth and drill locations map
There is about 1k of strike stated in RNS so if we use say, 700m as is not cuboid with a trimmed down 300m wide and 300m deep. A 0.28 average grade considering the extra gold and silver credits and using Bens formula, and there was a factor of 10 correction on grade I recall. I’m sure it was this but correct me if is wrong formula….
700x300x300x2.7x.0028=476kt CuEq

Used RC as a guide to Ascot and in same ball park as Andrews estimate, but bear in mind the overall resource estimate will be more than just the part of the resource that is open pittable (500mt)
Knowing minimum 1.7km length, (from 71mt resource) 600 wide by 600 deep
So for example and trimmed down to-
1200x400x400x2.7x.0028=1.45mtCuEq

Now taking into consideration this posted by Theiceberg-

Theiceberg 04/11/21 @18.57 >>>……for those interested a discount of 50% is applied (industry standard) for inferred-indicated over measured with a PFS.

So Ascot,
700x300x300x2.7=170.1mt
170.1x0.28= .476mt x $7700= $3.665B x1.75%=$64.1M
$64.1m = £54.25m

One could assume then, with an inferred MRE, a value of Circa 5-6p for Ascot fully diluted.

Copper prices back in the late 90’s when Newcrest opened its initial open cut mine at Cadia hill, were sub $1. Nearly 400% increase since then. Even taking into account the inflation adjustment of about 75% increase it shows how rising copper prices from increased demand has and will further drive exploration toward lower economic cut off grades along with the advancements made in mining extraction and separation technologies, which means more resources old and new have a better chance of being economically recoverable since when Cadia Hill was first financially modelled.

So although geologically Cadia hill and RC are a good comparison, they couldn’t be any further apart from their financial evaluations in their own very different social and economic climates.

>>>the modelling will be able to track some strike length particularly from holes like 13 that has a 28m intersect of 0.45CuEq<<

Hole 11 was the hole I mistook 13 to be that had high grade gold This from hole 11 assay summary.

>> Of particular interest are the significant intervals of comparatively gold-rich mineralisation encountered in the upper part of the hole which may be indicative of a mineral zonation system at Racecourse

Apologies, was tired and bleary eyed on phone last night.

Hi Andrew, may I ask your reasoning behind only a 20-30 million GBP added valuation for Ascot?

Would it not amount to more than that based on the extent of mineralisation now over a Km and of higher grade gold in particular and silver. From what we know, there is adequate intervals of boreholes to support an inferred MRE

If I recall correctly (without checking posting history) iceberg commented previously that an inferred resource is ‘generally’ discounted by about 50% over ‘measured’

To show a more comparable resource example only, let’s look at Cadia Hill, Newcrest’s initial open pit that was production ready in ‘98

>>> Ultimately, a resource totaling some 352 million tonnes at 0.63 g/t gold and O.16 per cent copper, or 6.8 million ounces contained in situ gold and 0.5 million tonnes of copper was estimated<<

The resource was eventually classified as mostly ‘measured’ after a total of 369 drill holes were completed for approximately 157 000 metres that formed the basis of a feasibility study that led to board approval to proceed with development in mid-1996

>>>Improved understanding of the geology of the mineralised system also indirectly contributed to subsequent discoveries in the Cadia area.<<

Shows the amount of work there is still to be done at Bushranger for an acquirer with the above paragraph showing how a similar path to cadia discoveries, will be followed at bushranger, but with the ‘added’ significant difference that, there is a further open pit potential from BR’s 2nd significant porphyry, Ascot

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/294566549_Cadia_Hill_From_discovery_to_a_measured_resource_-_A_case_study