Member Info for howezap

Sorry if that last bit was repetitive my bad

Good initial question Meepmeep >> Do you think AA set 2mt as an absolute minimum to be worth being interested in and therefore may discard their offer if we 'just scrape by 2mt', <<

The agreement in principle, states the 2mt must come from ‘Racecourse deposit’ CB has said on building the resource model at ascot that he doesn’t think they will need to use toward it though, as they hope Racecourse alone will model enough to satisfy the 2mt. There is no doubt potential for whoever, to increase that later with RC southern extension and to include ‘now’ what is at ascot into the resource model. So as long as the requirement is met with minimum 2mt JORC, potentially it could be 2.5-3.5 including ascot if drilling has stopped.

A decision to mine would cover all bases, particularly a scenario where Anglo may dispute resource modelled from Ascot’s legitimacy, to be included toward the 2mt to make up any potential shortfall from RC.

In the past CB, referring to Footrot, if it could add toward the 2mt (remember footrot?) said it needs to come from RC alone! so it could potentially be a grey area where legitimacy of Ascot to contribute to make up any shortfall. A decision to mine would potentially safe guard that scenario.

My theory SL
The number of occasions CB has referred to other buyers, and how inhibiting it is to only have one buyer with first refusal. It will be of no surprise if AA decline their right of option. In which case it would be seen as negative short term. But in reality this may be the best option to get a greater sale price. There was a question asked at last AGM regarding if less than 2mt was declared. CB’s response was it is better to prove up as big of a resource as possible before declaring. He could and probably meant within the budget and time constraints set. If ‘not’ then it may suggest that other parties have shown strong intent with a chance they know already Anglo will decline. So the need is, to go through the legal process to be free of the agreement constraints.
The other consideration that xtract may want to engage Anglo into the buy back mechanism just to not accept their offer, or 3rd party valuation to sell to a preferred major seems highly unlikely.

A world class asset in oz, what internal reason could they possibly have to turn it down?
Newcrest are certainly better positioned though

I need a lie down

You’re ok Rick, not that clever so harmless. You will never be taken seriously, just annoying. You are not my favourite troll however, that goes to humbogumbo. I wanted to rip his head off….

Rick123, VAST’s answer to 1DAYMAYBE
>> Get in VAST, to infinity and beyond.<<
Doesn’t have the same ring to it as strap on though.

Sorry Rick123 best of luck with you entry price target. Bring back 1DAYMAYBE we need a battle cry

I completely agree Steve, but I would also guess Anglo would also want to see the proof that the localised region is fertile with further proof there is the potential for high grade gold that will support an early CapEx recovery rate, which would certainly account for the work to ascot and beyond the requirement from RC.
There is more circumstantial with evidence too, to support in favour than against

flipper56- any concerns around the rise in fuel duties I believe are unfounded. They would only account for 5-10% of OpEx the single biggest factor will be copper and gold values, estimated using long term price predictions allowing for variations. They will work on 3 estimated values, a high, low and a midrange forecast to support asset valuation. Copper along with other battery metals will see rising prices and have long sustainable demand over decades, high diesel prices however, will not be sustainable once there is conflict resolution and economic upturn.

Flipper56–.
This us a previous post, if I may Andrew.

>>>>RE: Initial met test work
26 Apr 2022 10:46
Re the possible difference 0.15% cut off could make.??Caravel Minerals in Australia is also as porphyry deposit. At page 7 of their presentation it shows how the mineral resource estimates change as the % cut-off is reduced.??0.3% to 0.15% increase of 96% CuT??Obviously Racecourse won't be identical to these mark-ups but gives a good indication of the increase as cut-off % reduced. So its possible that 0.31mt could be nearer 0.6mt not 0.5mt????https://caravelminerals.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2020-11-AGM.pdf.
<<<<<

HZ-Worth pointing out that with .015 cut off would see the starting 71mt resource increase to in excess of 140mt before any additional increase from drilling. It’s easy to see how 2mt will factor sooner than later

->>Before any confirmed AAL option, or other 3rd party negotiation the fullest of data will be on the table to attract further commercial commitment from them.<<

If an approach has in fact been made, 2mt and the decision to mine could still be both the trigger points. An increased conceptual pit will no doubt support the credibility of asset. It would be feasible to model and work around the minimum 2mt resource and left open ended too, as will potentially be, the southern extension of RC. Yes, it needs to be fully closed of to complete the full pit model but also, only needs to be in support of the resource model for the buy back requirements.

It has been made clear that, once the resource model is confirmed, (in this case the minimum 2mt including what is modelled at ascot) then the conceptual pit will be re worked, with the supportive studies including the financial evaluations.

The comment from latest RNS could then make more sense.

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

Well said ntm we live in hope a sale will be forthcoming soon backed up by targets set verbally and in accordance to positive interpretation of the agreement.
( please any members do not quote paragraphs from it ;-)
If so then shareholders should be happy, if not and exploration of southern extensions of Ascot and RC including drilling to extend strike of gold intercepts then the same shareholders should be happy too.

Win win really

Thank you bcb a structured deal would no doubt give xtract a continued foothold in the region that many shareholders are hoping for, including myself. But wonder what Xtract could offer to a major, the next leg up for this ‘big’ project will require time and money which is against everything that CB has warned of, going into any kind of joint venture that could see any remaining interest liquidated out by a mighty major.

If anything, there may be a chance we could retain exploration rights for the other licenses that are part of the overall project. Maybe a structured or similar buy back deal for them, but at what cost to the main asset sale.

I believe the right thing to do, as I’m sure the company will do is sell lock stock and move on unfortunately.

That’s good to know Daz, personally I have no concerns with the current share price, this stagnation has allowed us all to accumulate cheaply, as you have yourself. Why would anyone want to pay more for shares?
Just ignore it, it will not have any bearing, prior to the outcome of a sale of Bushranger.

The share price drop has got everything to do with overall market sentiment over uncertainty in the economy. Certainly not because the market thinks it knows something.
I hope your research is coming along since feb

Come to think of it, are they likely to hold agm in what could potentially be in the midst of negotiations?

Last revenues reported in Jan were just from the Manica concessions, with no Q1 report as yet could they have deferred to include income from Eureka and Chongwe to potentially bring inline and have meaningful Q2 revenue to report pre AGM as unlikely there will be any start up revenue from fairbride, which will come too late. That is if in fact AGM is to be brought back to pre covid date. Could it be a last throw of the dice with the disappointment of fairbride stuttering once again to give market cap a well deserved boost to strengthen the company’s stance with any negotiations?

The job of an junior is to show just enough geological evidence so a Major has the confidence to take it to the next level. In the case of bushranger, an initial main resource model that is big enough to satisfy the terms of the buy back agreement and show Anglo that it will be viable from financial evaluation. Through the discovery and exploration of Ascot it will give added value to the project and returned to us shareholders. It would more importantly show to a major the proof the localised region is fertile.

With RC alone a major would still need to infill drill to get it converted to a measured resource to satisfy requirements of their feasibility studies in due diligence for CapEx to take it to development. It’s still far from ready to be mined.

Xtract will not be sticking 5or 6 holes in any further targets. If they are identified it will be through association from core analysis.

CB….”It defeats the whole evolutionary cycle of a discovery”

He certainly does want a quick sale if the main target of 2mt is reached. Job done! The company have other projects lined up.

Andrew, just for balance in debate, I would say reporting of facts in RNS is one thing, whereas comments regarding an intent to do something, in an RNS is a little different. It would be a forward looking staterement and be price sensitive if he said “further drilling will give us the 2mtCuEq” but it would not be considered price sensitive, when he states “we will be further testing to extend strike etc. that would just be a non factual statement going forward would it not? Hence why they are normally under colins comments, they can be subject to change with re evaluation or if circumstances change later. In any case, any later RNS subject relative, would then supersede the former RNS. Example being, we will be testing southeast to then state later, the system has shown to now swing south, we will now be testing south.

You are welcome Philtered1, Xtract are in a very unique position with the legally binding buy back agreement that was inherited with acquisition of the licenses. Obviously we would not be here without it! But if it was not in place, Bushranger would have probably been sold alteady. So, as inhibiting as it has been to only have one buyer with first refusal, imo it has allowed the project to advance to where it sits now with those clear targets following 30k+ metres of drilling from this small cap.
Incredible investment opportunity.

We all seem to be stuck in this blinkered view that racecourse including full explanation of the southern extension will be completed to then be able to complete the resource model, rework the Pit model and finally the studies that would support the decision to mine. Also we have the hope that Ascot will be proven up across the whole of the intrusion. The intent is all supported by comments in Various RNS’s, such as further drilling will be carried out, more met test work at ascot, further drilling to test strike etc of the gold intersections, applications for more drill pads and new geophys to assist drilling that has spanned both porphyries. So, why would they state, and or do these if not to carry it out.

It would be simply good engineering and geological practice to progress exploration this way, they are “putting a data pack together to a standard that any major would be happy with,” that the new owners would be satisfied they could proceed where Xtract have left off.

The other comment in twelve stocks, we don’t know if it will be 2mt and decision to mine, 2mt on its own or a decision to mine makes complete sense If you free your mind to the idea that they WILL stop when 2mt has been reached.

Everything then falls into place and explains the “stop with whatever we have got” comment. If Anglo turn it down, then who knows, but Colin wants this sold and my god has he been trying to tell us all along, so maybe keep an open mind.

Listen back over the many interviews since the New Year, probably the most telling in regards to the buyback, is the 12 stocks for Christmas with Phil and Kevin. CB says, “When you look at the 2 million ton threshold, the sooner we get there the better.”

Listening on, its quite clear to me that if 2mt is reached before conceptual pit is completed of which the pit is doubtful, then that is what will be put forward.

This one is well worth a listen back, listen carefully. There is one stand out comment that may suggest that there is some validity in the idea that not only, that drilling WILL stop when one of, or both of the points that trigger the buy back are reached, and will NOT continue after, if Anglo want it. From 19mins CB says, “it will be good for us when Anglo make up their mind wether THEY want to PROCEED with this project,”

Question is, has 2mt been modelled yet? As the decision to mine is very likely out the equation.

https://audioboom.com/posts/8006238-the-sunday-roast-presents-12-stocks-for-the-12-days-of-christmas-episode-10-xtract-resources

It’s not a bloody colander,
Not the death of a thousand lashes, were not gonna prove it
up, (Ascot)
I’m not gonna miss my target.

I want to see RC and Ascot proved up to their full potential as would the geologists that are managing the project if it were their decision. But it’s not, Colin Bird is a very astute businessman first and foremost, let’s not forget that!

Whitts, yes that is true although is just 3 holes outstanding from what was to test southern extension After evaluation from new survey concluded the resource swung more south which was when the new application for new pads were submitted. We know new pads were a result of the sub optimally sighted holes from the old survey. The other 3, holes 31,32 and 34 were to test IP to the south east extension of RC So yes will no doubt drill more holes south, as these holes will certainly not define the southern extension which could potentially add ‘anywhere’ up to a further 1km of strike to the main resource, all of which will be shallow, open pittable with more gold.
And some others might think RC is not good enough! Tut tut