Member Info for howezap

I read his, not being late comment as a positive, suggesting rather than being late through delays or inept managing. It was through a decision to extend with s good chance to increase overall value potential at Ascot due to the significance of the gold.
The assays speak for themselves, I certainly disagree that they are just trying to make up any shortfall at RC

Not particularly relevant to Bushranger here and now, but may bode well for the future employment needs, of a large mining operation with the many other supportive industries that would be reliant on it that a major Mining company would have to consider. Oberon being the nearest big town just 15min drive from black springs.
All adds to the legitimacy of a new mine (or two) being granted in the region of what is a mining nation after all.

https://www.oberonreview.com.au/story/7786371/nsw-government-unveils-500m-plan-to-unlock-housing-supply/?cs=1495

Could be argued that if James’s optimistic view that CB is already in discussion with AA are true. It would certainly imply that the decision to buy back in from AA is inevitable. As would doubt CB would want to be drawn into a position where they are dictated to, in what is required if there is indecision. Not great business acumen.

Besides, the project director is more than capable of seeing where inconsistencies lie in the model and establishing the best early start up phase through the model. So, if it were the case, for AA to then suggest extra high grade recovery would imply that the financial model has been submitted to them too.
I personally cannot see it, doesn’t quite add up.

I can fully appreciate frustrations with CB. But….to be fair he also give a damn good clue that this could be extended by saying “unless we find another bonanza.” You cannot argue that the potential of another cadia is not a bonanza. So his targets were never set in stone, come on!

It may or may not be more extensively drilled, but the plan ‘stated’ to drive a couple more into the system will add value, but more importantly to the project desirability of a major almost certain to want to take it on. There are any number of deeper porphyry clustered under racecourse and Ascot, it is not known how many, targeting has been to open pittable depths. So, to actually identify a seemingly huge high grade gold system under ascot, (seeming due to geological nature from analysis) is an important discovery.

The couple extra holes that will sure up the model at Racecourse, gives confidence at least, that the model is as good as complete there, to have been able to have made that analysis.

Agreed also, the shallow high grade early recovery drills are prudent.

If they get this ‘first option to buy’ deal right, it will not only, return a bigger pay day altogether for shareholders, but will be less likely that AA pass on the first option to buy and the project drags on for many more months as a new buyer is found.

We are still in the realms of that ‘quick sale,’ I will start getting impatient if there are plans for more extensive drilling than the couple of extra at ascot. Be worth the extra wait.

Have a confession to make, if you can recall on a number of occasions Colin has referred to comments on the bulletin board, such as, ‘you will never sell anything without a measured resource!’ Stating how wrong that is, …..yeah….. well that was down to me! at a time when I was trying to understand the intensity required of infill drilling to establish a measured resource. To be fair I wasn’t actually wrong, I just did not fully understand at that time, the evolution of a discovery and at what point the project would get taken onto to the next level. It’s been a steep learning curve!

Whoever takes bushranger on, if the decision is, to take it toward production, then a fair degree of the resource ‘will’ have to be further infilled to establish a measured resource so it can be converted to proven from a probable resource to satisfy requirements of their own full feasibility study which will need to be done, for the project then to be able to go into ‘detailed’ mine planning and engineering and toward their due diligence to justify spending a billion or so on infrastructure and production facilities.

Hence why I refer to, ‘all xtract need to do is show a starter project, that will give a level of confidence to a buyer that the project is viable and can be taken to the next level. Basically, the concept and data pack that Xtract are putting together is still quite rudimentary in relative terms to what will be required eventually, and given that Colin has stated previously that even a pre feasibility study is not a prerequisite to a sale, supports that notion.

A saleable asset package is looking very achievable and I share theicebergs opinion that xtract are putting together one that will hopefully be ‘too good for them to turn down’.

Really good question Flipper56, with the scale anticipated of a reworked conceptual pit, the bigger it is the deeper it will be, to eventually gain easier access to any deeper porphyry when open pit is depleted in 20+/- years that will then only carry its own OpEx as all production facilities and infrastructure would have been paid for.

The significance of the high grade gold at ascot in particular is prime example of this, the plan to test for shallow high grade that will help pay off CapEx in initial stage of mine ( it’s looking like Ascot will too, be initial open cut mine, separate to Racecourse ) They will be also testing at depth. If extensive would have huge implications for the project if xtract can show potential life of mine can be extended beyond open pittable resource.

Xtract just need to show a starter project for Racecourse that shows a potential economic resource that has the ability to recover its CapEx in a reasonable time. (Hence the plan to target the shallow high grade at Racecourse for this purpose ) They have no intent to mine Bushranger themselves, or work it in any partnered venture. A decision to mine will also trigger the buy back agreement if they show the concept, with relevant studies, that includes scoping for utilities and infrastructure, rudimental mine planning to show how it will be cut, positioning of production facilities and capability, that will potentially service both mines, along with the supporting financial studies that will give that economic evaluation.

Why is bushranger so difficult to value?

There is a clear lack of any real resource building or estimating news from racecourse in particular, that leaves no clues as to the real size of the resource to be able to make any estimations. Crude calculations on Racecourse have ranged from 1.4 to 2+mtCuEq. With assay results still outstanding, met results and IP survey for Ascot, in particular. It’s really difficult for investors as well as I would imagine, any third parties also, to know just how big bushranger is at present up to an initial resource estimate.

Even the line in the RNS stating they have the tonnage and grades to justify a rework of conceptual pit is open to interpretation, if looked at from a glass half empty standpoint ;-)

It does make any open offers from Anglo before the 2mtCuEq is announced doubtful, If that even is a consideration by them as they would realistically want the project de-risked before any consideration in my opinion. With the covert nature of resource building there is just no way of telling how much resource has been realised to make a measured offer.

So with the company not “plastering what they have over the front page of the daily mail,” it’s a necessary evil, but, it is at the detriment of the market cap for now and I’m sure most informed investors are understanding of this and how unlikely it is now that any further raises will be required.

The only other situation, is where there is an attempt of a buyout of the whole company. May point toward why any mention of, or further exploration of Eureka IOCG theory has not occurred yet. The evidenjce is strong and the potential is huge there, a possible mid tier company maker that for now seems to have been sidelined, maybe to be kept under wraps even, that is until, there is at least income from production firstly. On another note, it again points to the confidence there must be in bushranger, for it to be a very saleable asset if there is no inclination yet to set aside a budget of any kind to further test for IOCG at Eureka!

There is justification short term for throwing everything at bushranger to get it sold quicker.
Very confident and relaxed, am certainly more excited than anxious.

Thanks for sharing the cadia piece. Interesting reading, the discovery phase certainly employed a lot of ‘wildcat’ step out what appeared blind, drilling programmes. Didn’t appear to have had much guidance from IP surveying to the extent that bushranger has had the ‘perceived’ success. The unmineralised pyrite halo that was wrongly targeted and drilled at Footrot by Anglo, from the IP conducted by them before acquisition by xtract. Wonder if their geologist, that made that call at the time, is watching on to see if xtract geos can hit a sweet spot when Footrot ‘finally’ gets a couple of recon holes in it.
Newcrest did have better success but appeared to have suffered the same misinterpretation from their IP

>>augmented by the detection in an induced polarisation survey of what was later realised to be the upper peripheral disseminated pyrite halo to mineralisation, the blind, high grade Ridgeway deposit was intersected.

Thought this was amusing, what was to be a bad call.

>>a single shallow diamond drill hole 100 m west of the old open cut, intersected 96 m @ 0.6 g/t Au. These values were regarded as disappointing and Homestake withdrew in 1986

Oh dear!

They will use a longer term estimate of copper pricing for valuation that does takes into account these typical and anticipated fluctuations.

There is a suggestion that while there are economic constraints around the world coinciding with 2 large mines coming to production this year, the copper price could be held down for a couple of years until the expected high demand finally follows when the economic climate changes.

So it may not make much of a difference in a final valuation.

Had same thought myself NtM, honestly think he has said all you could possibly say and all that’s really needed at this time on fairbride start up. Market sentiment is just too subdued at the moment so whatever spin he put on it, I don’t think would make much difference in the short term. The market is only going to respond to hard cash income leading toward and up to full capacity.
Yes, thanks too for the posting this morning regarding alluvial and hard rock incomes.
Looking positive.

What a great, long period of opportunity it’s been over the last year or so, had so many top ups have lost count total number of shares now hold.

The resource has not only got substantially bigger, and now with multi systems, with ascot and the discovery of high grade gold veining, with Colin having to curb his excitement and for good reason. Not forgetting Footrot, as that too, has a good chance of being mineralised and add to certain district potential.

Each and every top up has come off the back of solid updates, particularly with the significance of certain aspects, the course that asset building is taking. Like, conceptualising the open pittable potential, along with metallurgy test work that is generally only done when mine planning and for financial evaluation. This should generally show investors the company have confidence that bushranger will be viable, and not just another asset parked up in the hope one day it will be sold. Even little pointers like changing the auditors, to a company that have over twenty years of experience in corporate transactions. Specialising in small cap with experience too of companies worth up to a billion. Jeremy Reid stepping down from the BOD to concentrate his time solely on the oz asset, the increase in shareholdings from director and major shareholders over the last year. I’m sure there are more instances that have shown how confident the company is that bushranger is going to be viable.

Many have bought trenches at 7p+, well over a year ago and obviously if it was considered then to be good value, how much more value has been added to shares, particularly since the retraction down to these range bound levels. The current share price is an absolute steal, potentially and historically held down with threats of further dilution, Fairbride running well overdue to start production the main driver of uncertainty, the obvious political and economic climate influencing recent downturn in most sectors, helping or not helping however you want to look at it as I’m sure every researched investor has accumulated to some degree at these low levels thanks to the above.

Now fairbride is well into its start up, the company must surely be on the cusp of rerating supported also with a huge amount of news from oz and first quarter revenues from Africa along with what are hoped to be decent audited accounts for last year.

These opportunities don’t come round often and with the gift of cheap shares still available it’s been a dream investment so far, and one that could have some decent longevity beyond the sale of bushranger.

That’s is good to know gixxer, I would not expected any less tbh where a uk listed company are concerned working with foreign sub contractors. Even if there was a disparity in H&S regs in other countries. There is never any excuse for injuries or worse, to employees or anyone on any site, anywhere, in this day and age. I have a zero tolerance for incidents of any kind on my sites, and boast 100% incident or accident free. Incidentally, tracking a digger backwards in relation to the cab will get an operater thrown off site, no argument!!
**** ‘doesn’t’ appen! Let’s all be safe, and hope miners in countries like chile get better rights and working conditions.

Ouch, shows how easy things can go so wrong when plant operators are not concentrating 360*
A banksman is compulsory in most instances in uk with heavy plant, you would be shocked the sort of damage you can do with a 10-30 ton digger! Just with a simple flick of the wrist or accidentally tracking in the wrong direction because the track body is 180deg to the cab.

I vaguely remember something Colin spoke about the Chinese were having to do to avoid the dangers of collapse due to previous stoping. Would be interested to know the kind of regs these guys have to work under in places like Africa, if any maybe! Our guys cannot break ground without full utilities survey, GPS cable detection scan, and only after, will they get issued a permit to dig, wether that be streetworks or in middle of nowhere.

A little on fairbride valuation, if is of help, can add 2p+/- for other hard rock and alluvials.
All assets from the Colin bird stable discussed, xtract from 36mins, valuation from 49min

https://podcasts.google.com?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hdWRpb2Jvb20uY29tL2NoYW5uZWxzLzUwNjQ0MzcucnNz&episode=dGFnOmF1ZGlvYm9vbS5jb20sMjAyMi0wMy0xNTovcG9zdHMvODA0ODAwMQ%3D%3D

Whilst on subject of expectations, a little snippet I missed last time I listened to 08/06 takeaway.
Referring to gold production across Manica.

>>“We have been beset with rains, we’ve not had a shabby quarter, that’s yet to be announced.” <<

With that hopefully it shows production from first quarter ‘22 is not too modest after all. Particularly following on from the last quarter ending dec’21 where it was the best period for production since commencing gold mining.

That does appear more promising now, than initial assumptions due to wet season.

It’s fair to say I am more optimistic than many. Targets have been laid out clearly from acquisition of the project. Now with the RNS stating we have tonnage and the grades to justify a rework of the conceptual pit, it’s clearly apparent that either there is 2mt or adequate resource to show positive economic potential through a decision to mine, there is no reason to believe as yet, that both requirements have not been met.

The switch to Ascot was always on the cards, particularly for me, was when CB said, “If we had found Ascot first, things would have been different.” Now, with the potential that the gold system carries, I believe that many do not even grasp the significance of it for the project, instead focussing on wether or not there is 2mt or not and worried that a high grade gold system doesn’t have copper in it!

600m deep and 150m wide at the top. I don’t think so! he was prob referring to the bottom of pit unless he just misquoted.

So chances are then the income will not necessarily factor in any way alongside audited report then.

Anyone hoping to attend AGM?
What are the key points we could hope to get answers on?

What’s happening with plans on further exploration once Eureka is producing? It’s such a big deal and a shame it’s parked up!

Chongwe? In case any members missed Andmillsy post recently with emailed reply from xtract answering that question.
>> Chongwe was an opportunity where a small project owner asked the company to assist and understand what he had and where we might share benefit if there was any potential. It was more exploratory than a deal, but our findings are fairly positive, which if confirmed, will take us into an ongoing definitive arrangement, which of course will be announced.<<

Any other small JV’s in the pipeline?

Are xtract hoping to retain the exploration rights on other tenements at bushranger if and when sold? Can’t imagine what else they would divulge regarding the project.

Do you think is likely they would release last years full report, Half year income and notice of AGM all together?
Only apparent reason I can think of why first quarter results were not released.

Poor results are poor results and will not fool anybody however packaged. Not saying they will be poor of course but at least all grouped together particularly if they take advantage of the dispensation l, so as to include first income from fairbride on top however significant. Fairbride income in black and white will overshadow any shortcomings from previous reports.

That’s just one cynical reasoning, any thoughts on how else it all may be reported?

Thank you Andrew. Yes maybe that is the case then
Back in ‘20 the notice was on the 8th as you say would have had that by now.
So If I understand correct the Special dispensation would be the only legitimate reason to defer audited results.
Might be a daft question but do audited reports ‘have’ to be reported on time normally?