Member Info for howezap

The DtM is a Australian term and I believe one that maybe even had Colin unsure in the early days. In interview he said you can’t just declare a DtM, you have to expose the ore body with the pit created, sink a partial shaft…….along those lines
Have a listen https://youtu.be/2WFUFdHX62Q
Worth a watch back but from 9mins he talks of the DtM

Ha ha yes I think we have all had our hands held and dragged along for the ride it feels. I will certainly be thankful to Colin for keeping me guessing, interested and invested along the way if he pulls this off.

Basically Chris what the agreement is saying, either you show us a a minimum resource , or you can show from what you have got from financial modelling that it is economically recoverable.

Colin has said previously that a Pre or DFS are not a pre-requisite for a sale.

Hi ZM Racecourse as it stands is still in very early days toward being a mine. Xtracts job is to just show a level of confidence to a major that there is scope to be profitable. ‘A starter project’, which hopefully a major will take it up to the next study level and so on. There will be lots more infilling and further exploration drilling, let alone environmental impact studies etc. to eventually get to a high level of geological confidence in the resource. As it evolves through the many stages incrementally, eventually it will need to be mostly measured to convert to a proven resource that is required to support a definitive feasibility study to then go into detailed mine planning and engineering in justification of the billion or so CapEx it will eventually need.
Inferred and indicated resources are far too speculative to support financial studies at higher levels.

I think with the sheer scale of bushranger, and where it is positioned along its evolutionary journey, a ‘major’ may not necessarily be the next to take it on from here.

ZM what you are talking of there is at feasibility or even pre-feasibility study level.
This updated financial model will be more comprehensive than the last one, but still barely at scoping study.

Was meant to include this bit from last study in my last post

>>Open pit modelling was carried out using the currently defined JORC (2012) compliant Inferred Resource of 71Mt @ 0.44% Cu and 0.064 g/t Au at a cut-off of 0.3% Cu, as well as additional unclassified resources at the Racecourse prospect

A revised open pit model will need to be carried out using the updated JORC for Racecourse. Below is taken from conceptual study RNS back in July ‘21

>>The preliminary conceptual open pit optimisation mining study ("Conceptual Study") was completed by independent consultant, Optimal Mining Solutions (Pty) Ltd of Australia ("Optimal"). Where appropriate, other independent consultants were used, including Cartledge Mining and Geotechnics together with Lycopodium (mineral processing experts).<<

The pit design will be carried out at this stage too.

Is likely both RC and Ascot resource statements will be reported firstly.

CB on the Sunday roast talking about one of his other companies.

The only thing I can take from the interview with kev and Phil, and it really is scraping the barrel! Even for me. There was not a single mention of xtract! Not even a slip of the tongue. Bit rude I thought tbh normally at least get a plug or a decent piggy back even. There was a point when they were talking about the strong position that his companies are in ready for when the tide turns, kev then also mentioned just AFP, when any other time he would have mentioned xtr.

After my initial thought of complete disdain and even disgust, it turned to wondering if the guys had been briefed not to mention xtr as they have entered into a news blackout. So shhhh not another word!

I think I can see now why they consider 35 to be sub optimal. Due to its east to west orientation and angle it missed the 3rd lateral zone.

These extensive lateral bands of copper-gold mineralisation run north to south and have been tracked at over a km.

Noticed an interesting comment regarding Hole 35 (Ascot discovery hole)
Is very well mineralised -164m@.35%CuEq including 64m@.58CuEq
In end of phase completion RNS 4thAug.

>>> (hole 55) The hole was drilled at an inclination of -80 degrees towards the east, completing at a final depth of 721.5m, where BRDD-21-035 was drilled sub-optimally towards the west.

Could mean sub optimally in terms of 35 not hitting the strongest mineralisation. As is difficult see that hole 55 could have confirmed either way from the geological understanding from just core analysis as the hole was only just completed at the time.

Could they have determined this from core analysis of hole 55? Or was it already determined from hole 35’s assays but not mentioned previously?

Bit late in the day I know, but one that I would hope theiceberg could comment on its significance, if of any?

Hi Stevem footrot have been sent, it was mentioned in 27th july RNS update.

>>> Assay results continue to arrive, with the results from four drillholes still expected at Ascot and to the south of Racecourse, and the results of two drillholes expected from Footrot.

What it would actually mean more important than the money, is that I was right all along, and am ‘not’ an ‘over optimistic’ , ‘enthusiastic liar,’ Or a talented, dishonest bull’hitting dreamer.
Yay

Hi Steve do you have an opinion as to why they have maybe held off on increasing the Initial recovery rate at RC instead going to updated JORC and decision to mine?

Could it suggest further, that the idea you reported back from the AGM (reading between the lines) that seemed to be, to get the AA decision out the way whilst the resource was sub 2mt, to get a ‘no’ from them. Could having an inferior IRR potentially give more an idea that maybe AA are (unofficially) not interested?

Well laid out post ZM. I would agree is likely AA will be privy to the financial model supporting the pit concept once it is designed before the market is shown details. I think the question is, when to now time the release of JORC resource statements. They are expected to be finished anytime now to into November. Maybe this timeframe is for the conceptual study to be completed too?

The company that will design the pit will need the (rc) JORC to complete their work along with xtract completing the financial evaluation aspect. Other than that it’s down to guesswork still as to when the party starts. With the market maybe having an influence on that.

Not sure why you believe the grades are extremely low, many are in line with the average of around .26Cu mined at Cadia. Typical porphyry grades for the Lachlan belt. The original 71mt was made up of mainly the higher grade part of the resource. The numerous infill drills will have added to the 71mt before any of the extensions. It was highly unlikely that the extensions to the outer margins of RC would return grades as high anyway. So it is ‘not’ just the drilling outside the initial 71mt that increases the resource. So I’m sure we have certainly way more than doubled the Copper content as you say , whereas the resource is estimated to be 500mt, dependant on the cut off used. Let’s just wait and see the updated conceptual study. This will be more relevant now than the updated and initial resource estimates. Unless of course you are looking for an earlier exit?

Certainly not a dreamer JS. My evaluation is from past RNS’s first and foremost, interview comments and plain common sense. You must think the management team are clueless.
Why are you still going on about 2mt! It’s unimportant now with the decision to mine. You are delusional if you honestly think that even after a third phase, which isn’t happening btw, 2mt will still not be met. I believe you just imagine it in your head so it must be true. Do some basic research at least.

Looking at how the strategy has perceived to have shifted away from the very early project objective of a drilling estimate of between 16-22k metres to prove up the 2mtCuEq to see if AA wanted back in, to a ‘hopeful’ 2mt estimate from RC with 3-5 holes stuck into Ascot to say to AA, “there you go gentlemen, there’s your other porphyry.” To eventually conclude the programme with in excess of 30k metres drilled, a shortfall at RC granted, but with numerous other anomalous targets, some confirmed with drilling, the deep gold system that shoots to near surface, the geophys target to the east that returned the highest gold intersect of 15.50g/t Au, footrot, including 2 further new targets identified and the possibility that RC continues to the NE. I think above all, far better geological knowledge of the relationship between RC and Ascot and what is now shown, to be this multi mineralised multi porphyry system similar in characteristics to Cadia.

Does that sound like they were just chasing grades to make up any shortfall? Or we have missed the boat for 20p a share with a quick sale. I hope we have missed a quick sale for 20p a share!

On the contrary, they could have just gone straight to conceptual study after RC and the decision to mine with a few holes into Ascot to say, “there you go gents……….” Alternatively they could have just chased the higher grades at Ascot to get to the original target.

Has there been a change of strategy? I don’t think so where exploration is concerned. But certainly from one that was reported to us. It has definitely exceeded expectations, I am certain It has always been, to achieve the maximum project value from the available funds in the treasury. I have no doubts they have achieved that!

Fair points Andrew was thinking similar. I felt the, “do we keep drilling to get to 2mt” comment was very out of the norm for Colin. Almost down playing to keep expectations at a ‘sensible’ level. That would certainly help investor sentiment to cushion a disappointing outcome, but also prime the market to look more favourably upon impending news that wasn’t so disappointing at all.
Was it really just an off the cuff comment it came across as?

It doesn’t take anything away from the good news overall though that a resource statement is being completed which confirms there will definitely be no more drilling carried out. At least, before approaching AA.

Apologies there Steve didn’t see your CGT post or for any implication that you are not respected. ;-)

>>>Dont forget we will have a tax bill from the Australian government.

Not necessarily, this was posted by Thediddymen over the other side last year if it is of help or credibility. The poster is well respected. Suggest there will be no Aus equivalent to CGT.

>>>On the issue of the sale of Racecourse, Racecourse is owned by Projectore, a subsidiary of Xtract Resources. Unless I am missing something the way to return the cash to shareholders would be by issue of Prospectore shares in specie to existing shareholders of Xtract. The acquirer then purchases the shares from Xtract shareholders. In effect shareholders will see the net transaction which is a cheque/divi payment

That means that theree was no disposal of Racecourse, which means no CGT or Australian equivalent. While in the UK the transaction will be treated as a capital rather than income item, or in other words it will be treated as a capital gain. Shareholders will still retain their shares in Xtract which means that there will need to be a capital apportionment of cost to determine the capital gain if the shares are held outside an ISA.

Hi gixxer, if I could offer some defence for CB. Firstly, Kwadoku ramblings on the various company share price declines since Colin bird took them over, just uses the share price to support his agenda and not market caps. He ignores that fact and so does not take into account any share dilution since then, so is very misleading.

Generally a tier 1 , depending on
where you are , is a mine that produces 20mtpa over 20+ years. This of course will be an initial mine, that will go on to access the deeper underlying porphyry after the open pit is depleted. Results have shown some drills had touched the edges of these deeper porphyry at RC. Thus increasing the life of mine considerably. I’m hoping the updated conceptual study will show this as a feasible future option. Along with IP/EM signatures across the whole deposit area that show other anomalous targets including two new targets identified. These will all have some credence backed by the correlation of the surveys against the assays from RC.

I think value will certainly come from showing a multi mineralised, multi porphyry system that they have gone to the lengths to understand from various drilling locations. Maybe doing so intentionally rather than just finding and firing holes into the high grade crown at Ascot to guarantee 2mt. What is more important?