Member Info for howezap

Nether the less, the full audited results for ‘21 are due anytime now.

With an impending asset sale now potentially being pushed back, is there a legitimate reason that a company would not publish its yearly financial report and defer it until after a sale has been made?

Now, with any uncertainties out the way as to wether the company have entered into any kind of negotiations. The AGM is likely on course. If, of course that it falls back in line with pre-covid date. Accumulative Q1 and Q2 could be dropped prior to AGM being announced. End of last year it immediately followed half year report.

Antsquaher many thanks for bringing some fresh input, good to know you are a long termer.

Do we know where these other resources sit in terms of being ready to be mined or their evolution. My thoughts are that Empress generally add value where there is already value and de-risked. If there is much drilling to be done still, I don’t think it would maybe be for them.

There is no doubt over the whole license huge potential for investment that would potentially suit their usual strategy of “investing in mining companies with development and production stage projects who require additional non-dilutive capital.”

Reading the ‘2018 Hard rock collaboration agr. update’
>> A number of these sites (Guy Fawkes, Dots Luck and Boa Esperanza) have under prior ownership had some exploration drilling and mining activities but none of these sites would justify the construction of a plant solely for their production. <<
Is intriguing to know where Empress could fit in and how lucrative it could be for Xtract going forward.

Ascot may see an infill drill programme of the high grade part as well as RC, as was hinted they would do so by Colin. Could that imply working toward a second conceptual pit? I think so, as there has been a metallurgy test work sample already taken with plan to take further sample/s from Ascot which is normally only done when mine planning and for financial evaluation. As it has been made clear that both pits are being looked at as being completely separate, they would want to show economic viability on individual merit, and for pay back possibilities of CapEx for both too.

Sherron said “The three other ‘deposits’ they are going after”

Could Empress be looking at their usual capital investment, bigger plant to increase production capabilities at GF,Boa and DL

All parties would gain

As of 31st may RNS

To date, 8,526m of diamond drilling has been completed at the Ascot prospect, with assays still awaited for drill holes BRDD-22-040, BRDD-22-045, BRDD-22-046, BRDD-22-049, BRDD-22-050, BRDD-22-051 and BRDD-22-052. 

By time this was released, the last, hole 52 had already been logged and sent for analysis, so by the time the RNS was complied potentially up to a further two more could have been drilled, certainly one as I would guess at a week for analysis and logging?? Plus a further hole since so maybe 3 more in total. Potentially ‘more’ if longer to get sent and then there is when it was sent prior to RNS

No indications as yet to where hole 52 is located as is omitted from the accompanying drill location plan.

Not a bad head start to get the remaining ‘additional’ holes drilled. Maybe Colin’s couple of months likely 3, doesn’t look too overly optimistic after all.

The selling going on-
Do wonder how many investors actually go the extra mile beyond the obvious website and presentations for research and news releases. Not everyone I guess reads public forums, and subsequently gets to hear the podcasts that can be helpful. (Most of the time)

Xtract would have been of the many AIM stocks that was being pumped, occasionally sitting at the top of the risers leaderboard, I’m sure many of the new influx of so called lockdown traders at that time were drawn in. For all the right reasons, but seeing this not making them the quick buck, there’s one probability.

Many investors just simply can’t be bothered and don’t take research seriously it’s madness.
Many other reasons on any given day of course.

I think that’s realistic Andrew, you just cannot see it being a couple of months, with drilling required. Also I’m not certain what he means.

In Zak’s podcast he seemed clearer that the high grade component will have an infill programme to increase the higher recoveries to 5,6 or 7years done before the resource model is finished.

With kev and Phil he mentions the high grade component at 4-6 years recovery, but then I get an impression that it will be extended further to 8 years ‘after’ the model has been done, saying that might send us into an infill programme that will extend recoveries from 4-6years to 8 years.

It may have been due to editing, not sure. What do others make of the comments?

High grade component with Zak @3min40

https://podcasts.google.com?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hdWRpb2Jvb20uY29tL2NoYW5uZWxzLzUwNTExMzMucnNz&episode=dGFnOmF1ZGlvYm9vbS5jb20sMjAyMi0wNS0zMTovcG9zdHMvODA5MjcxNg%3D%3D

High grade component with kev and Phil @1min40

https://podcasts.google.com?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9hdWRpb2Jvb20uY29tL2NoYW5uZWxzLzUwNjQ0MzcucnNz&episode=dGFnOmF1ZGlvYm9vbS5jb20sMjAyMi0wNi0wNzovcG9zdHMvODA5Njk4NA%3D%3D

Colin was clear about a couple of holes being needed to fill in a hole in the model that will be drilled before the conceptual pit will be finished, which is not to be confused with the high grade drilling.
At Ascot he mentions finding out what’s below the gold and also what’s above it so no doubts a very minimum of two holes there, which I think he suggested. Then of course, not forgetting Footrot

Good work andy, as always.
Thank you

He thinks they’ve closed the racecourse off to the south which to me must simply mean is all they needed to have done do to close it off, as there is clearly a huge anomaly they couldn’t possibly have touched to the south I can’t imagine the new IP would’ve shown anything less than the old IP that they working off. He referred to mineralisation joining up to Ascot not potentially being commercial but surely cannot be referring to the whole southern anomoly.
Now from Zak’s interview of 20mt x 20yrs to 25x10 to 25x25yrs seemed a comment to throw naysayers off the scent.
Could very well have the 2mt, but clearly with decision to mine it is not a necessity.
Take your pick to suit your agenda!

The comment about the width of the pit being 150m, he was either mistaken or possibly meant that would be the dimensions at the bottom of the pit. As 600m deep by 150 wide at the top it would almost be a sheer face!

Overall, there is your “another bonanza” with hopes of that quick, quick sale put to bed, but for every right reason. A little more patience.

Still on course for a sale by Q4 if other party plays ball potentially for the more optimistic.
I think they squeezed as much as possible from Colin good job fellas.

Howezap has logged off

Maybe some Nietzsche

I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.

One for Gixxer ;-))

There was an old man from Sawtry
Who found another large Porphyry
He decided to drill it, JORC it and flip it
But alas this one won’t be for free!

We have a wonderful board that is well informed, and now displays culture and wit.

I did try and write a limerick for the ‘less’ cultured but nothing would rhyme with porphyry :-(

>>Please don't ask me what the terms mean ! <Andy I think it’s geological speak for we missed the good mineralisation after drilling into the shiny red signature.

Xtract geos went on to perfect better targeting of the high chargesblioity of the IP using the drone mounted EM to imprint with the low resistivity to see where the subtle differences are.

From memory!!

The comment I made about being overly fixated on the 2mtCuEq was born from a comment the project director Jeremy Reid had said that has stuck with me.
He said, “ this will never be a discussion on have we got enough rock? It will be what packages of rock will be viable.” This was at the time when It was suggested from CB, they would not be stopping at a billion tonnes of ore. Referring to the IP signatures of what became Ascot.

They just need to show a starter project that will get them interested of round about the 500mt mark. The decision to mine, as long as that shows is viable to pay back initial CapEx, so once all plant is paid for it will open up he doors and the project grows enormously.

Reading between the lines, the decision to mine is not the ‘lesser preferred option’. It potentially means that the criteria to mine was reached first. So if Anglo can see that ‘starter’ project, they will have foundation to increase RC pit concept further through resource modelling further south when they take the project on as it is by no means finished.

So I believe IWTO thinking, is on the tight lines. And it gives insight into the thinking behind maybe why they are growing the extra resource at Ascot.

IWTO, it really will be an interesting situation if or when the point arrives. I have no doubts that RC will be shown to be a viable mine, and Ascot, a huge copper gold resource.

Will the project get to that point where joint economics will be evaluated I wonder? It would surely then require Ascot to be proven up to the point ‘at the very least’ to show a positive NPV with a conceptual pit similar to the original one modelled on the current main inferred resource?

Is this where it’s heading?
So many more questions.

Look forward to the interview I hope the guys can press CB for some clarity.

>>”Interpreting the clues" may well make a TV good quiz show, but I dont want the head of a company to play it with shareholders :)<<
Hopefully will see if we would make good contestants soon, or really bad ones Andrew ;-))

Hi gixxer fair comments
>> He’s gone from stating it's an in the bag Tier-1 asset which will definitely trigger the AA clause ''it does look like RC will lead to a viable project' his words, not mine. <<

Latest interview he stated 20mt over 20years. Generally recognised as tier 1 asset. With decision to mine it will still trigger the AA option. At end of day the ‘overall’ initial resource estimate will be well in excess of 2mt regardless, as all holes are generally adding to it.

So ok, if I were to concede to your opinion, If there has been a shortfall in expectations from RC, it is still clear that gains from Ascot could outweigh that from RC anyway. If there has been extra drilling, it is unlikely going to be at the expense of shareholders, just more time.

I just think there is too much emphasis fixated on the 2mt option, when CB has clearly said, they haven’t decided which option it will be yet.

You cannot expect an exploration mining company to not re evaluate the direction of exploration to follow an ever changing geological understanding to exploit it , if it would lead to a greater return.

Andrew. I didn’t quote 5 or 6 ‘ more’ holes.

What I stated was
>> Xtract will not be sticking 5or 6 holes in any further targets. If they are identified it will be through association from core analysis. << I was referring generally to any deeper associated porphyry found.

Now I know with that comment I am setting myself up that I have changed my mind. I did state that, but after they had said further drilling is planned to further test gold intersections.

Ascot gold is a different system technically, but they simply have to investigate it further due to its potential economic impact now, and the geological possibility that implies that it is a very deep gold system similar to Cadia Ridgeway, adding to LOM beyond the open pitting.

>>The second pit at Ascot is required to make the economics attractive ?

If I could add to Andrews honest reply to answer your question it would be that if racecourse is ‘not’ economic, another pit at ascot is not going to make racecourse any more economic. On the other hand if racecourse ‘is’ economic another pit at ascot is not going to make racecourse any more economic. Unless, they are both economic, in which case the overall economics will potentially become greater due to sharing CapEx costs and production capabilities than if the were evaluated individually.

Either one will not carry the other I would have thought.