Member Info for howezap

Not only Ascot Guys, CuEq from RC will have no doubt had a boost from the high grade intersections found in the ‘hole in the model’ those are serous numbers that the modelling will be able to track some strike length particularly from holes like 13 that has a 28m intersect of 0.45CuEq and 26 with comparable zones amongst others. These lateral zones are quite extensive across Racecourse. Similar to the 3 lateral zones of high grade gold and copper at Ascot that has been traced over 1km of strike there.

>>>Significant intervals of gold mineralisation have been intersected on the western side of the Racecourse Inferred Mineral Resource in an area with no previous historical drilling, which will be incorporated into an updated Racecourse resource model

· The best intercept is from drill hole BRDD-22-054;
· 26m at 1.64g/t Au (1.24% CuEq) from a downhole depth of 338m
§ Including: 18m at 2.28g/t Au from a downhole depth of 346m

A very welcomed post Andrew, I’m sure it will help settle some members nerves with the comparisons, and with RC mineable by open pit, that should have huge implications on the projects initial economic potential that will satisfy a big buyer such as Newcrest, as has been said, are perceived to be the more obvious acquirer due to their already presence close by.

Cadia DFS helps toward ‘painting that positive picture’ in the absence of Xtract’s forthcoming statements and mining study, that there will be enough economically recoverable copper and some gold shown at Rc along with Ascot and all the other added project potential, to give an acquirer the confidence to warrant further de risking to take it to the next stages.

That is all that needs to show from the modelling, along with all the other supporting evidence that will add further asset value.

Shouldn’t be any reason to withhold footrot assays as we have previously had all the remainder of RC and Ascot. Good point regarding the share options, you may be right too about the survey results Cygnus, can only hope.

I still think another webinar after all the resource estimates, 3D modelling and new pit concept along with survey lines with a narrative will be an ideal opportunity for Colin to ‘eventually’ be able to champion bushranger if all that earlier optimism is proved to be just. Particularly if AA don’t want back in.

The silence now is deafening, can’t be much longer to wait since Colin asked shareholders to hang on in there and have a bit more patience.

A bit!!!

I feel like a kid who was given a new bike at Easter and was told he was not allowed to ride it until Christmas.

Back in your pit ntm nothing to see here!

Porphyry porn! You gotta get excited about B-veins….

https://youtu.be/gL0WzJ70z3s

Feel ashamed….very ashamed ;-))

>>>cooler-than-expected inflation in the US as lowered expectations on the extent of rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, supporting industrial demand. Copper prices were also supported by looming concerns of low supply.<<
•Trading economics.com

Good decent recovery this week, back up to levels last seen in June when on its way down.
It’s a start….

>>> so the identical volume doesn't make sense.

Does to somebody on the spectrum or is superstitious ;-)) I do it all the time ZM in one way or another. Normally round it up to the nearest thou then add 1 extra share ie. 25,001.
Stupid habit now

However it is played out, wether they do or don’t want back in, either before or after their intent is known I just hope we get to see a full webinar presentation with the team showing all the 3D resource modelling and surveying results showing any other anomalies so we get to see a visual representation of exactly what phases 1 and 2 have added to bushranger on top of the original study of the 71mt resource.
But, ‘just wondering’ if that is even likely, particularly if AA pass up their option if another or other buyers have already shown interest. But, it is a fantastic marketing tool so you would certainly hope they would do one.

Footrot assays possibly next for release?

>>>It’s all about the level of geological confidence and with this kind of good to strong evidence put together by a highly experienced and respected management team it will not just have a residual value placed on it.<<<

There is plenty of scepticism to the general credibility of both IP and EM techniques toward ultimately, identifying commercial ore deposits, and rightly so. They are generally more an investigation tool as opposed to an actual exploration tool used to identify potential targets to warrant further investigation.

I’m not going to pretend I understand the actual physics, but there are advantages reported to combining the IP and EM found in other projects just like the technique we have been told being used at Bushranger that have assisted the drill targeting by understanding that relationship.

Furthermore,
>>>The mapped geobodies based on EM anomalies give complementary information to the IP on volume and distribution of the mineral resources. EMS-IP is a cost-effective investigation tool that deserves more attention in geoscience projects.

So just how much credibility will be placed on the ’combination’ of using both EMS-IP toward any further asset value from the other anomalous targets identified ‘does’ appear positive.

If we assume the mining study will be positive in showing an economically recoverable concept, that must have a further premium added to the value of the in ground resource.

I think we should also be taking into consideration further value will inevitably be placed on the result of work carried out to show a Cadia like multi mineralised multi porphyry system.

CB has been fairly clear on the significance of the geophysics across the whole area where comparative similarities are shown between the known geology and ‘other’ anomalous targets, to be of good potential to be mineralised.

This will be evident and supported by the understanding of the relationship shown between the main inferred/indicated resource and the signatures from both IP and EM surveys.

Some of these anomalous targets have also been confirmed with drilling, further underlying porphyry below RC, the outlying anomaly to the east that returned a very high gold grading, the gold system below Ascot and footrot.

It’s all about the level of geological confidence and with this kind of good to strong evidence put together by a highly experienced and respected management team it will not just have a residual value placed on it.

Volume has picked up compared to yesterday. Couple of big sells that could easily be down to the wrong interpretation from the RNS. particularly with copper surging this morning now over 6% up.

Impressive Andrew, what a fantastic opportunity to average down at under a penny. Do not envy that journey south though! Drives home the frustrations that the LTH’s often show.
Us newbs obviously haven’t helped at times, so respect where due

Trio of big buys at 3.08 average.
What a great price! took a chunk of mine at 4p well over a year ago, with. Prior to those my highest trenche was at 7.20 which I was rather pleased with at the time as I felt the share price was going to run away into the distance. Hopefully will double my money on that one yay ;-)

Anyone beat north of 7.20?

Really well put Cygnus, agree too >> "and this led to disenchantment in the asset for those not fully up to speed."

There was a dependency to fully understand the association between RC and Ascot, it was the professionalism of the management team that plotted and put together the data necessary to have that geological understanding that is no doubt really important.

It’s not just about chasing grades

I agree Cygnus, it’s the underestimation in the first place of potential asset credibility toward a value that is in question.

Do wonder where all the earlier optimism has gone, perhaps a perception of underachieving.

I don’t see that at all, Bushranger exploration has exceeded initial expectations.

Was going to look into and post something along these lines, but on recollection, Bauhouse previous post from 18 Jul 2022 08:03 serves the point. It is an objective view, so worth a repost in light of some of the very modest estimates we are seeing

>>>Given that Kjeld and team are on zero pay from 20Aug21 and they are not allowed to buy Xtr shares or be awarded share options- their pay is 1% of the sale value of BR.??Do you honestly think Kjeld and team will get out of bed for £1.8m which is 1% of 180m<<

$1 billion finally agreed by AA after Colin had shown some great negotiating prowess, finally offering 100% of the project, all of the other licences and use of his office swivel chair.

Is likely to be a cash dividend payment or part divi part new shares of the acquiring company. Paid direct into any accounts that shares are held.
Holders would retain all existing Xtract shares after.
Seems to be the most popular opinion

To then take profits, once proceeds are withdrawn from trading account/s and transferred to your linked current account you will then be liable for capital gains tax if shares are held outside of an ISA. SIPPS have withdrawal thresholds where tax then becomes liable

Andrew >>> The superlatives have been recent ("we have a tier one asset" ), and he must know by now what we really have <<<

A good point, with the earlier 2mt predictions, they were no doubt more speculative without ‘all’ the assay data that wasn’t available at them times. But his very recent statements about a resource at RC of 20x25mtpa (tier 1) are a lot more easily determined and would simply be a direct lie if shown later that the resource was far shorter than 500mt.

Wether 2mt was going to come from RC alone has always been contentious. Colin has not directly said “we will get the 2mt from RC” but, he thinks that…….

I have shown a podcast of cb from july21 dreaming of a resource of 20x20mtpa at copper Eq’s of 0.3-0.35 which clearly shows he had realistic expectations that 2mtCu from RC alone were not in his mind. The early geophys at the time pointed to the extension of RC going all the way down 3km’s and could well have seen 2mt coming from an extended RC. But as we now know that potential extension became Ascot and other out and underlying gold systems.

It may well not, just be the economics that will be a deciding factor for AA but their own internal politics and where their jurisdictional strategy lies.

Two possible scenarios, firstly there was an original suggestion of “not to be surprised to see phase 2 finished by increasing the IRR of up to 8 yrs at Rc.” As this is now ‘not’ being done to make the economics as strong as possible, but there is adequate data to trigger the buy back to potentially get a no from AA as xtr may already have a good indication that they will not take up their option for these internal political reasons above.

Secondly, although there is sufficient data to trigger the buy back mechanism there is an understanding that the current economics, due to the limited IRR will not satisfy AA’s due diligence process and are not likely to proceed with buying back in. Leaving the project open to the global market as there is a belief that a greater sale price can be achieved.

Just based on the limited IRR being put forward and from steve4077 notes from AGM that perception is to get a ‘No’ from Anglo.