Member Info for howezap

Good post over on the vast board Steve, I have recommended it as have a few already.
Not suggesting otherwise do the same.

https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.asp?ShareTicker=VAST&share=Vast-Res

The project objective has always been to approach AA once 2mt threshold is met, and some kind of resource is modelled at Ascot, thats all ! Not packaged up and sold with whatever we have as drilling will stop by May. (Comment from Zak Mir)
Really?
Doubt very much that is the case when there is clearly huge value to be added from the southern extension of RC and Ascot gold in particular. Is it likely they didn’t know wether Ascot would be ‘pay’. So it simply does not mean that is it, for further exploration. It may have been interpreted that way, (guilty as charged) but it clearly is not the case now.
If drilling has stopped to take stock and understand what to do next along with informally approaching Anglo, there is clearly a large enough resource modelled at ascot to make up any perceived shortfall.

You cannot assume targets have been missed just because an interim summary is being planned. Don’t believe for a second this summary is due to failing targets. Another thing that I think there is also a misconception that once 2mt is declared it automatically triggers the buy back mechanism. They may make an early offer, but until xtract are happy they have successfully explored, increased the resource and produced their initial resource estimate with all relevant studies, until then it will not be sold. Any major would surely want to see xtract take all the risk in proving all the preliminary work to give them the confidence to take it to the next level.

Oh I agree Andrew I do prefer your more common sense approach in the absence of real values.

Love that! If math don’t fit, move the goal posts lol
The current inferred resource is at .44 average. I’m anticipating when updated, that average will have come down to between .25-.3 possible .3+
Whatever economic cut off is derived the average will remain the same. It just means more of that lower grade will be processed.

One thing to consider with the statement re ‘tonnes and grades to justify a rework of the conceptual pit’
This could mean that from this ‘point’ onwards, they believe there will now be ‘real’ economic viability with potential enough longevity of mine life to satisfy a major mining operation. Subject of course to further financial evaluation.

Just to illustrate, if just 10metres is added to strike length, width and depth, it would only require a minimum 0.185average grade to hit target
910x210x210x2.7x0.0185=2mt

We could go on, it just shows how ‘wildly’ crude our estimates could be, but it does look very positive indeed particularly where recovery rates could be at with RC with predominant copper at processing, and all other factors that would support that low cut off value, potentially even lower.

With a cut off value of 0.15 then, a conservative average grade estimate of 0.25 using Bens measurements that would easily exceed the requirement would it not?

900x200x200x2.7x0.025= 2.43mt

I see that Andrew and my thought is the reworked conceptual pit would be summarised along with resource models from RC and Ascot. It is an ideal marketing opportunity for a last push potentially toward them 8p warrants as suggested. Particularly if to announce that modelling shows 2mt has been reached! That would be a material change in the project followed up by a webinar for visual representation.

Has anyone more cleverer than me attempted an estimate, however crude, with a cut off of 0.15 recently? Would be keen to see where folk believe RC may be at.
Answers on a postcard….

I’ll go first with a rampy guess of 2mt of course.

Apologies in advance for being pedantic hamsters, but I can’t help pointing out the project in itself is called ‘The Bushranger Copper Gold Project’ :-\

But yes RC has more copper, it was suggested by CB there can be advantages to this with easier recoveries from separation when processing. The met test work results will be known so hopefully will have comment on in the summary.

Further met test work was planned for Ascot to understand optimum processing. This paragraph would suggest the gold and copper could be very easy and cheaper to process.

>> Modelling is advancing at a pace, and to this end, we are modelling with a specific intent to identify copper and gold mineralisation trends and their spatial significance, designed to maximise opportunities and identify areas which could have material effect on the model.

A reworked conceptual pit may be subject of a new webinar presentation.

Agree iceberg that is my understanding

RC resource model has been continually updated as assays have come back. Converting what was an interp model from the core analysis to one with grades included.

The conceptual pit model was up until the point of the last but one RNS still the same conceptual pit released many months ago.

>> Modelling continues at the project, with the Racecourse prospect indicating that it has grades and tonnes justifying a rework of the conceptual open pit."<<

Wether that modelling at RC shows 2mt has potentially been reached we will see. Seems quite possible as why would they feel the need to rework the conceptual pit around a sub 2mt resource model ready for this interim summary.

This summary when released is screaming out for an interview! An explosive one at that.

Look forward to interim summary, hopefully will shed some light on wether RC southern extension will be further drilled to increase and close off. At this juncture it would certainly suggest that now they are onto the gold, there is no intent to stop just yet.

The striking thing being the gold intercepts are similar to the near vertical intrusives at Cadia. Hugely influences LOM, there lies the underground system that will only carry its own CapEx when open pit is depleted at depth.
Very significant implications for the NPV modelling.

It’s not likely Anglo will want just an 80% interest in the project phil. It is generally accepted they would want to buy back 100%.
Clearly xtract will not be looking to keep 20%, that has generally been made clear enough too.

The agreement drafted gives leverage either way to be fair to both parties as a starting point for negotiation.

I thought the NPV model will be supportive of the updated conceptual pit, which makes it more compelling. The decision to mine is a further step.

Thanks Steve I can see and do take your point, although I would just add that, at the time the intention was to explore footrot.

Of course, we have no certainty yet that exploration has actually stopped! We can only second guess what the company are doing, it would not be unreasonable, with insistent targets laid out and what is in accordance with the buy back, they are now putting together a ‘package’ to offer up.

Aeris (thu13.57) is totally correct,
they cannot talk about what they are doing up to, and during talks.

Trying to fully understand the reasoning behind the whole declaring a ‘decision to mine’ as well as the minimum 2mt option, to me suggests a buy back partner that has already shown a ‘lack of intent’ to take the project back. If they don’t want it now, it’s unlikely they would want any other major to have it. They could and probably would use every trick to look to prevent xtract from selling on now, if there would be any chances they may change their minds through whatever reasons and decide to want it back in months/years to come.

If the agreement in all its perceived simplicity, was that clear, then why are xtract taking steps to potentially declare both options?

I believe the answer suggests, that Anglo may ‘not’ be the new owners. Xtract are taking steps to ensure the buy back mechanism is triggered to go through the process, so are free from the legally binding agreement to sell to a preferred party.

“We hope Anglo have the decency to tell us they don’t want it,” remember that comment?

All I am trying to do is evaluate my investment to fully understand what I have bought into. If I am correct then xtract could potentially be left in a much better position.

Ha ha yes of course you got me on that one Steve but you said

>> So anything found within the EL5574 licence can count towards the 2mt target that would trigger the AA buy-back option.<<

That is what I am disputing, I’m suggesting the 2mt needs to come from RC initially, backed up by cb interview, but all proven resource from EL5574 will be subject of final saleable asset.

I understand there is sensible interpretation of agreement regarding the JORC if you ignore CB’s comment re footrot as you are implying.

With my interpretation, it leads then to a suggestion then that the raw data from RC will just be shown to “see what they want to do.” Otherwise, could there be an initial JORC from RC alone? to trigger and open negotiations. Potentially along with the decision to mine supported by conceptual pit modelled around an increased resource of +/- 2mt

Hence if shortfall, the decision to mine will cover that eventuality.
Otherwise why would there be a need to declare decision to mine if they could declare +/-3mt that includes Ascot, just to trigger buy back mechanism?

Swings and roundabouts really, Ascot discovery has turned the project on its head into a very serious proposition for any major. Of that I am certain we can all agree on.
It’s good to chat ;-)

Stevemocal et al
Interview where CB says 2mt needs to come from RC and will not include Footrot

https://www.share-talk.com/colin-bird-executive-chairman-of-xtract-resources-xtr-l-interview-2/#gs.2limnk

Last couple of minutes

Just to clarify why I think ascot in terms of adding to the 2mt trigger, (not to be confused with adding to the sale. ) is a grey area. As Ascot is adjacent and will share potential processing capabilities CB considers it to be accountable. But Anglo, if my hypothesis is correct could dispute its illegibility.
Hence the double whammy of both 2mt and to mine

Could be pi..ing in the wind, but that comment re footrot…..

Very true Steve it has created some confusion along the way, my opinion was born from CB’s comment ages ago about footrot not being included in the make up of the 2mt threshold to trigger the buy back. Not to be confused with non being included in the sale, as is for Ascot too. Can anyone recollect that comment?

I have learnt it’s unwise to rely wholly on what is said but it does make sense to me as otherwise you could then have half a million tonne here and there spread out over the tenement making up 2mt.

Please someone remember so I haven’t got to spend the afternoon listening back over many earlier interviews.

interviews.