Member Info for howezap

I agree Ella I think there is some drilling to be done in between the two as this area has shown a lot of interest but I guess that will not be done without resulting geophys in the area first or they would be drilling blind. They no doubt need to outline Ascot further and with the suggestion they may stick one more hole to NW of racecourse to close it off its would suggest some further extension drills to the south too.
It’s gone a bit quiet on the 3rd porphry and I’m not so sure now that actively exploring a third porphry without the intention of delineating it as we have seen at Ascot will happen If timescales and budget are to be stuck to.
So, my guess If a third is identified it will be through association of existing drill core analysis that have shown signs and resulting IP. Nether the less, this has been the only instance where Colin has deviated from the target set out where he said “if we find another bonanza, we may have to have a rethink”
Interesting….

IP surveying doesn’t start until mid feb if I recall right

>>we may be pessimistic assuming our MRE will only be inferred.?

Am confident it won’t be just inferred, there has been infill drilling at racecourse to convert some/much to indicated.
Iceberg was first to suggest this would be the case a while back.

I would hope with the targets in place and the available budget to get done what is required to get the resource in oz ready to sell, income from fairbride not expected until late Q2 into Q3 will not affect the time frames or ability to get it done.
I have no doubts they would have ‘not’ taken into account anticipated revenues from fairbride to fund oz drilling when they had the last raise to fund phase 2 programme with the clear objective then at the beginning of the phase, to prove up the 2mt to see what Anglo wanted to do.
It’s a bummer fairbride production is pushed back again but at least will not have a knock on effect.

Caveatemptor >>> If the current drilling programme shows Ascot to be a similar size to BR then does that mean we will be looking for a bid in the range of 40p - 50p?

Here’s a recent post from the The Count Of Monte Cristo, a hugely respected member over on ADVFN

>>>Taking into a account some of the things CB has said in that interview, I think we will see a sale for between 500m to a billion USD (44p to 88p a share) just my opinion.

I share his opinion, Colin is certainly suggestive of a sale in this range.

>>> “some people are talking of a ten-bagger”.

To be fair, in response to Kevin’s suggestion to stick a billion dollar price tag on it and see what happens, Colin got round to eventually replying, I don’t think we’re a million miles away , subject to Ascot…..
I make that there or there about.

With a recent comment from CB that, if we did not have the buy back agreement, he feels that majors would already be in touch. Have wondered this before now, and with this comment along with others made over time. Such as, how limiting it is only having one buyer and what a great position to be in already having a buy back partner. There is obviously two sides to the coin. I feel that with the legally binding agreement in place, that gives Anglo first refusal, we have a clear objective to work toward in building a saleable resource returning the best value to shareholders. It has so far and will give protection against any number of majors that could have stepped in early with a lower offer, than what we could expect to get from the deal made with Anglo. You would think that any offers then, would have had to be taken seriously by the BOD. It has also allowed the company the free will to build the resource package to a meaningful size without any outside influences with that objective in mind.
Without the agreement in place, would bushranger have been sold by now for less than investors had hoped for?

6m net gbp+ Yearly for 7 year mine life expected

Mornington oz , would not be unrealistic to expect 40p+ from sale only of bushranger project.
African mines producing already, with expected 23% royalty payments from fairbride that is production ready, will total minimum 6m net gbp+ to effectively underpin current market cap without a consideration of the oz asset at present if you like.
Relatively low risk from here.

Take the time to listen to latest podcast

https://audioboom.com/posts/8019563-midweek-takeaway-with-colin-bird-executive-chairman-of-xtract-resources-aim-xtr

The 100/200k seller that has been a drag on any momentum, has so far appeared to be done.
Good day again today, I feel now that any solid news, will see a stronger reaction than previous.
To me it just seems as though market perception is that it looks ‘too good’ to be true at this MC.

Could berenbergs valuation of 228m have taken into account projected cash flow over a period of years, that cash flow would have been valued with a discount applied.
This formed ‘part of’ suggested method of valuation by Colin when discussing how bushranger will be valued back in may.

Very good synopsis Sq52 my understanding is the revised, extended conceptual pit with estimated copper contained will be the first milestone. (Until then mine planning cannot really start). I would hope then this would be the 2mt threshold and furthermore would hope the market could be informed at this stage. Not sure it will be likely though.
Metallurgy results will go into the model and detailed mine engineering planning will be done, dependant on the IP over the proposed 1.5kms testing feeder zone. Financials will be worked on too, toward the studies being done. The IP surveys over the southern part of racecourse, the 1.5 km area in between the two bodies and over Ascot are to help build the evidence required for an inferred resource toward MRE. It is not for drill targeting how I understand it, the drone mounted, EM survey was used for more precise targeting over the IP. It’s not clear if drone mounted is still being used as there are no lines of IP at all over Ascot.
Potential updates from oz? Completion of drilling, metallurgy results, findings from surveys,
I wondered what else could be shared up to completion of model too?

On the subject of major shareholders, and wether they lurk the board. Have just realised Peter hall no longer posts on the xtract board. He is active elsewhere though.

I, am Alex Terry !………

If and when Manica starts producing adding to the alluvial income, then surely it is likely the market will react positively.
There are any number of reasons why market perception of xtract is stalling them from investing at this stage. Two reasons in particular come to mind. Firstly, misunderstanding of grades found typically in porphyry deposits. Are waiting for more evidence that de-risks the project. The other, having concerns that the project will need further funding particularly now, with Ascot to consider.
If historical RNS’s are the norm for researching then it is clearly going to be difficult to understand the clear objectives given by Colin, in recent interviews from them. The extra geophys to complete the picture, limiting drilling of Ascot to only be loosely inferred, also that there is an adequate treasury, to complete what they need to do.
I’m expecting a reaction when meaningfull revenues eventually start coming in though, which will very likely be before we get the open pit estimate. This could well be the tipping point.

Totally agree JDAU, I for one welcome the critics, after all, their opinions are just as valid as any one else’s. However they may differ from the majority.
It gives us an opportunity to stretch our legs occasionally in replying and remind ourselves in doing so, why we invest our time and money in xtract. Even if listening to the latest interview is not enough to get you pumped up.

https://audioboom.com/posts/8019563-midweek-takeaway-with-colin-bird-executive-chairman-of-xtract-resources-aim-xtr

See how I cleverly worked that into the chat. For the casual onlooker or anyone that missed it. Possibly even ted/porv

Ted, the concept envisaged would be that both ore bodies will share a central processing facility, spreading overall CapEx over both mines, infrastructure and utilities are all nearby, with a government that will actively support copper mining.
Arguably a huge plus for the economic viability of the project to get it to production. Also to bear in mind these discoveries are likely district and not isolated and with now multi type mineralisation, point to a multi porphrytic system to be found similar now to cadia.
Racecourse is shaping up to be tier 1 with huge runs of copper mineralisation at consistent grades starting shallow to surface, as little as 11 metres. Very minimal overburden to shift before pay dirt is exposed. Making the recovery rates palatable.
Where Ascot is concerned is looking very likely the grades will consistently be stronger with better gold, moly, etc. it’s orientation is to be more understood yet but is looking to be similar to racecourse in dip. Could very well be, a major would consider Ascot will form the main part of the resource to recover CapEx quicker.
The objective is to loosely infer Ascot so there will be enough evidence for a major to have the confidence in the geology to decide.
You say, There are dozens of other copper projects that are ahead of the queue compared to xtr's. How many of them will actually go to production?
Bushranger will have a much better than average chance imo

Maybe so ted, but that concept was based on the pre existing resource of a mere 71mt.
Very soon to be in region of 500mt+ with grades of a similar average around .3/.4 tbc economical down to 0.15 Cu cut off.
Give it few months for an updated pit concept then there will be a fairer comparison.
I feel you already knew that though ;)
Welcome back

Thank you whitts, yes 6 not 10 weeks, a lesson there check twice post once! That is a fast turnaround then, quickest so far the previous was hole 11 at about 8 week turnaround from hole completion.
I hope.

It may be apparent now we are not seeing the significant lab delays in returning assays. Hole 35 turnaround was about 10 weeks. There has been a 3 month period in between some of the earliest holes completed we are waiting for, up to the completion of hole 35, so could not have prioritised 35 as18 holes roughly including 17, 18 and 22 would have been send for analysis before 35 had even been sent.
What does it all mean?
Could they be building the resource quietly with the assays that have arguably been returned from labs are being collated into the interp model?
If the 10 week turnaround of hole 35 is anything to go by then it looks promising.