Member Info for howezap

Hi porv, is all in my honest opinion of course and last time I checked , I cannot possibly be wrong because it is just ‘my’ opinion.

If I have reported something incorrectly, then it would be appreciated if you would kindly offer the facts, and not resort to insults…..Again! I am the first to admit I am wrong if facts are not right! It wouldn’t be the first time!

I am certainly not dishonest intentionally, or even talented, if I’m being honest. I will ignore the last slur as I know you can’t help it. ;-) welcome back

Total drilling in the IOCG deposits at The Little Eva project just recently sold, includes 1,470 drill holes for 208,637m. Most of the drilling was done by RC. Cheaper, as the drill compiles cuttings instead of core so gets bagged at surface and go straight for assays. Whereas Diamond core, used exclusively in both xtract phases at BR can be analysed on the surface for geological and mineralogical structure more suitable in porphyry modelling, with the extra handling increasing the expense.

So it’s not too difficult to understand why Eureka pit extension drilling and IOCG theory exploration is not planned yet. It could be extensive and costly. Could be combination of mostly RC with DD as well. As the pit will be further developed eventually to the north west and at depth it will require more drilling with tighter density data points due to deposit type and to increase the probable/proven ore reserve potentially in a first development phase to increase the overall pit size.

Could well then see some initial deep drills to establish what and if is down there and extent of IOCG if so. Results here could open up the project considerably if a larger discovery is found to then have its own plant developed to process on site.

Financed, funded in house, or with a similar business model to Manica used. There is huge potential mid to long term, just need to get that regular income in the short term first to kick start the project.

Half year report,
>>>No further exploration was undertaken at Eureka during the period pending consideration of options for possible future development.

Very Interesting. Just hope the excitement from them earlier assays that highlighted the potential different deposit type was warranted and the project doesn’t follow in the same way as kalengwa if profit cannot be turned from transferring ore off site.

Hi IWTO
Cheers, value your opinion, would agree with you that a more detailed costings update should or could improve the economics.

Pound for pound, one would assume in most instances the IOCG would be more profitable due to grade and easier to separate. But the reality of a far longer LOM for a porphyry deposit with more consistent grades in bulk make for easier mining, less ongoing plant modifications for different ore type and a long mining operation over decades that do ride out commodity cycles a lot easier.

Let’s just hope the numbers do stack up!

CB has the right individuals in place across all his companies with the specific capabilities, values, and experience to move them forward. If he couldn’t keep on top of his workload, he would do something about it, if it was to the detriment of that company.

He stepped down from jubilee metals as he felt a more suitable candidate with different set of skills would be better for them in the next phase of their evolution as a company. CB admitted his skills are more appropriate to companies which are at an earlier stage of their development. So he did something about it, he’s not daft.

Having to second guess what’s going on is obviously not just confined to just xtract then.

Hi Butlerman, there is an arguable point that the pit model in particular with its financial evaluation will be held until after AA have been approached, as this will form the basis of the ‘decision to mine’ option. If AA pass, on the option to buy back in then there will be a full on marketing push and a webinar will potentially be integral to it as they ‘position the project in the global market.’ If they decide they want back in then we could see a news blackout out until conclusion.

Then on the other hand, Colin will not want to go into any negotiations with a poor market cap, as he has stated previously “its better to go into negotiations with a strong market cap than apologising for a weak one.” If this is maybe still the case now, then a full reveal including a webinar and anything else at their disposal to drive the market cap up may happen before AA are approached.

I’m open minded on this one, can see both sides.
Anyone else got a take on this?

Most recently reported from BR

-Last of racecourse assays
-Completion of phase 2
-Metallurgical test work results
-Last of Ascot assays

Are we soon going to see the results of IP/EM surveys?

They are literally the last piece of the geological supporting evidence. So if it does not follow in the next couple of weeks, would it be fair to suggest that another webinar could be planned to reveal the revised conceptual pit model and show the full extent of both exploration phases along with an analysis on what surveys are showing.

Why wouldn’t they this time round?

Hi IWTO, wouldn’t the economics and potential to return CapEx be far greater with the sheer scale of RC alone, which would proportionately increase due to increased size of operation, footprint, facilities and logistical requirements. It has more consistent grades in bulk. Higher grade early recovery phase that will see CapEx recovery from 4-8 years.

Eva is made up of 12 small deposits ranging from 0.7mt with the largest, little Eva, still being only 100mt. 7 of these are included in the current mine plan. Most deposits are IOCG with mineralisation being veined networks or breccias. Others are copper only stratabound type. So recovery of concentrates from these sulfide deposits can be easier to separate and can be more profitable, but nowhere near as abundant as more desirable porphyry deposits, which can be processed at lower cost making them very economical to mine.

These really are two completely different animals after all.
David and Goliath!

Another glaring point from that,, these portfolio managers are referencing their interest in mid to long term outlook. What we have in BR will likely be a far shorter term to realise a big chunk of value for its shareholders, will continue to be in a strong financial position with remaining quality assets having the scope to be further developed. So Xtract will ‘still’ fall into the mid to long term interest of these fund managers and investors alike.

You hear repeatedly from portfolio managers to analysts in the resource sector about the mid to long-term prospects of copper and gold in particular.

If you can stomach the short-term volatility there is a strong case to look for value right now in companies that have been literally thrown out with the bathwater and are between 50 and 80% down from highs of 18 months ago. Have good assets and have been either lucky or clever enough to have had a last raise in the last year that will see them over and through this micro bear market in the resource sector and potentially for the next 12-24 months.

What I’ve just heard now and similarly a couple of times from various other podcasts, if it’s a quality junior with quality assets that has a quality management team and is in a position to not need to raise capital they are ‘all’ very interested indeed.

HELLO!!

What I find really positive is that companies in this position wouldn’t necessarily have been sold off so much because the market sees there is no financing overhang. So with the timing of fairbride start up being late, we have seen Xtract being dragged down, Potentially further than it would have done if it were already at maximum production. So there is even greater upside potential there too, once the full fundamentals are there for the market to digest.

Just a case of when will it be time to roll out the great Xtract PR marketing machine soon.

I think you are on the right lines Andrew. Seems to be as near to a reasonable comparison as any others we have seen I would think.
Certainly a lot smaller than BR in terms of tonnages but the deposit is an IOCG so slightly higher grades are reflected. It is proven to part measured/ indicate/ inferred and is at feasibility level to be an open pit with. Planning is subject to detailed plans and finance being sought. It’s accessible by air and road, with water and HVpower line too.
https://cumtn.com/operations/eva-copper-project/overview/

>>>Xtract is now incorporating all the geological and geochemical data from the Ascot prospect into a geological model which will be used to estimate a maiden Mineral Resource (JORC 2012) for the Ascot prospect. In tandem with this, a revised resource estimate is in preparation for the Racecourse deposit. This will then be used as the basis for an updated conceptual open pit mining study.<<<

As above, no doubt they are preparing both RC/Ascot models concurrently, the “in tandem”may also suggest both models will maybe, be released at the same time. Then potentially conceptual study to follow on after.

As the decision to mine will now be the option favoured to trigger the AA option, ‘with’ the conceptual study being integral for this. How do folk see this unfolding?

A/ Resource statements released- pit study then released - AA invited to the party

B/ AA approached first once the resource and pit study is complete- then inform market of intent and/or release of resource and pit study after.
Or any other which way?

To me the first right of refusal may offer exclusivity to AA in having access to data prior to market. The uniqueness of the agreement in place has caused so many unknowns and or uncertainties and I think still does. Be interested to know how others think this will unfold.

That really is a significant long zone of mineralisation.

Hole 55 looks as though it fell short of a couple hundred metres as completed at 721m so was unable to test the full target interval below 35.

On the plus side
>>>The intersection in hole BRDD-22-051 of 18m @ 1.8% CuEq from 432m (Zone 3) occurred 170m up dip of the intersection of 64m @ 0.58% CuEq in drill hole BRDD-21-035 suggesting that high grade copper mineralisation does extend closer to surface and potentially within depths which would be amenable to open pit extraction.

As we know RC and Ascot are being looked at as separate entities, this is very significant for Ascot future viability to be mined in the Aussie sunshine alongside RC

Hi joeman yep I did say that,
>>> was based on the Original JORC resource

The point there I was making, was that there surely would have been some kind of evaluation from the initial drilling of phase 1 to see if the potential was there to increase the resource in the first place to justify wether or not a conceptual study was worth doing. Otherwise, they could have released a conceptual study ‘before’ phase 1 even started.

That’s water under the bridge now, and yes 30k+ metres of drilling later with long runs of porphyry grade mineralisation, it not difficult to see the potential profitability. Also the financial evaluation from phase 2 at RC must be positive if an extension of the early recoverable high grade parcel is not deemed necessary now. That is, that ‘if’ the current financial modelling showed it came up short, then they would certainly want to embark on the extra drilling to bolster the numbers from the high grade crown.

Simply cannot see that they would choose not to do the extra drilling if the financial evaluation was disappointing.

I know this will be a far more comprehensive pit/scoping study than the original existing one, which was released only a month after the completion of phase 1 drilling. Now wether or not that is anything to go by as the study would have been started during the first phase as was based on the Original JORC resource, But it would have made sense to had started it after some evaluation at least of that first phase I would have thought. There would also have been 8 weeks turnaround of assays to add on so it was definitely not a full phase evaluation. However, it has been been 8 weeks now since completion of phase 2, and within that the very last holes into Rc (53&54) to infill a gap in the model, which saw the assays expedited and returned on the 27th July. So that makes it now 11 weeks since then. What does this mean then? Who knows! The only conclusion I can realistically draw from this is this post could literally be mistaken for a drunken ramble as it skewed of in a different direction to what I intended when I saw a squirrel in the garden and now literally can’t be arsed to edit it.

Off to the pub now :-))

Fair one lucky, we are getting to the point where whatever your opinion on timeframes or targets is, they will ‘eventually’ all be aligned at some point when a resource statement is released and shareholders can re-evaluate their positions and we can all reset again.

By that time though, xtract would have consolidated both the production, (with fairbride at full chat) and exploration aspects of the business into a solid proposition for new and existing investors.

Would be even better to not only show nil debt, solid revenue incoming for years to come and an asset ready to be sold on at a big premium. If they can also provide a positive update on some further growth opportunities that are due, they will have the full ticket as a solid case for investment head and shoulders above most AIM listings. So xtract will stand out when that time comes and I’m certain we will see xtract back on the risers leaderboard again.

Good point Banzai >>> Open your mind and look past the temporary headline and you'll know it makes sense.

Otherwise this all just becomes more fodder to go on the repetitive parsley pile.

Who said that’s what I think lucky? Besides, that wasn’t the point, but it probably wouldn’t matter what anybody tried to post in a positive light!
Its a shame you have become so negative when there is no real reason to be as yet.
I hope you see a decent return here soon, but we are all in this 5’hit storm together mate which obviously isn’t helping.

Point of note,
CB has revised a market turnaround from oct/nov to feb/mar now.

To be seen if this has an effect on timescale to when BR goes on the market.

Prior to this revision was it just coincidental that oct/nov was suggested that both, RC modelling with resource estimates and a market turnaround were forecast to coincide?

Still comfortable with where these copper prices are at present

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

I wonder if Colin has hastily arranged to do the podcast since Bezants big share price drop Friday to clear up or give some clarity over the suggestion that they still owe their JV partner half a mill in their interims.

Caerus >> The non-payment by Bezant Resources of its share of Troulli JV expenditures. The JV agreement provides for funding up to US$1,000,000 with each party agreeing to commit up to US$500,000. Funds were supposed to be provided by both parties in advance.

The fall does appear to have been a delayed reaction to the above Caerus RNS earlier on Friday and as a result of the BZT members drawing attention to it and posting about it on their own forum, seem to have shot themselves in the foot.

Would hope there is a reasonable explanation and other companies in the CB stable don’t suffer a knock on effect due to investor confidence taking a hit.

I identify as a long term holder, therefore I am.