Member Info for howezap

Thank you guys for elaborating, it does makes for a decent enough comparison then. Makes you wonder if it was discounted at valuation as likely the unrest from shareholders is certain to be cost related.

Josemaria resource.
197mt proven which would have converted from a measured JORC the remainder of the 1.012bt = 815 is probable converted from indicated. With DFS so fairly advanced resource.
We would have some catching up to do to reach a similar level of confidence. Wether that is an intention of the bod, only time will tell.
Yes cheers news I see you have been a regular over on the dark side.

Can recall Colin in interview way before Ascot and before the conceptual pit was announced that he considered a sale with what we had then would put xtract market cap in comparison with jubilee at what was then 400million. That would be a very speculative 40p!
He has also, more previously suggested that if Anglo wanted the 2mt , “that is not the deal, it would have to include those other targets we have identified that we have stuck some holes in.”
On face value, suggesting a far lower level of drilling compared to racecourse, to put forward in a resource package. Would add credibility with his other comment made that “The treasury is adequate for what we need” ( exact wording??)
When he was discussing the in house estimate to go to Anglo with he slipped in that it would go to third party valuation.
Just mulling over the idea, I know folk don’t consider what has been said in interview to have any real credibility but sometimes you can get a flavour of what has been said to form a fair idea of intent in this instance.
I’m quite certain the company are in contact with our buy-back partners.
Or not

>> “There is no news because there is none.”
“All these drill holes mean nothing without a Resource estimate.”

All these drill holes mean everything in building a resource model. Moronic post shorteverything was going to go on but I think lucky sums it up better.

Jubilee core business is processing and recovery. Xtract, an exploration company. very different businesses. Each would require the same due diligence in establishing a basis for an investment case. The potential upside in xtract with their current 40+million market value, if they can package and sell for say 400m then that is 10 times its current value. Because most of xtracts asset value is speculative at present the market cap is reflective of this.
I can’t comment on jubilee assets, but with market cap of just sub 400m it is no doubt hugely less speculative and based more on revenues, so a lot easier for the market to value, but with less shorter time upside potential relative to xtract.
Forget the share price and evaluate an investment on current market cap and potential upside the company is likely to achieve in a particular time frame that coincides with your strategy. We should be re-evaluating regularly based on fundamentals whenever there are any real material changes and never be sentimental about a share.

There’s two type of fund raise through share allocation, first where a company is doing so just to survive or cover its debts. Other is to raise additional capital to re-invest in itself to fund growth opportunities.
Reasons for doing raises prior to acquisition of the bushranger copper gold project are becoming very evident now with the production of some, and near production of other assets in Africa that will contribute significantly to the expensive drilling efforts in oz that will realise a huge resource that more likely than not, will be sold for a considerable sum. Any further raises will be done to return greater value to its shareholders that it simply would not be able to do without them.
Shares in issue and the price at any given time are not the driving factor, the market cap is the all important one.
All comes down to knowing what growth opportunities a company has and understanding the risks in potentially what is the most risky sector you could pick to invest your childrens inheritance in. Research and due diligence are so important in knowing what you are buying into.

Lucky, I don’t see an obvious reason why a cut off of .1 would not be a possibility considering the variables that would determine the eventual value must all be top of scale. The resulting metallurgy work they will be doing to test the extraction process will have a contributing factor too. CB mentioned before about not being too concerned if gold is not too too evident. That the extraction can sometimes prove difficult. I wonder now if the extraction metallurgy work is more to do with the gold content they possibly are finding. In the interview he only mentions separating silver and moly.
Could they be finding lots more of Ellas gold?

The team are putting a serious package together. Colin mentioned they were going to do extraction metallurgy test work, “to see how the silver separated from concentrate and see if any molybdenum can separate to make payable.” Looking into the practice it has had some revolutionary changes that have significantly evolved processing operations by increasing productivity and reducing costs considerably. Metallurgical test work is normally done when planning plant construction.
Don’t know what the revolutionary changes are though they wanted to screw me for the next chapter.

With an asset such as Bushranger with a very strong probability that it will get bought back, and with the potential safeguard in the legally binding buy-back agreement that will fend off a quick sale by majors that come forward offering any sub value offers that would have to be taken seriously taking shareholders into consideration. Certainly it benefits the longer term outlook, but that is the point. With the opportunity ‘if’ required , to raise further funds through a share placing the board are in a position to release so much more value if it was economically advantageous to do so. The economics will not turn negative through a placing.
I cannot see how the BOD have not been in contact with Anglo. I am confident we already have an advanced exploration programme planned with a damn good idea of costs and the status from other assets that will pay toward the next drilling.
It’s not likely yet, Anglo will make an offer until more is proven, if not then xtract can crunch the numbers to get to a point where they are happy maximum value is achievable for the project through whatever proving up is necessary to go to third party valuation as a starting point in negotiations when ‘they’ are ready, not Anglo.

NTM
Not sold 1 single xtract share have only added, almost weekly.
I’ve learned with AIM stock, never follow trends, take time with your dd and look for undervalue. And have patience, the easiest way to lose money on AIM without it. Not serious about crypto myself, but have an amount I trade with on PayPal app for pleasure.

Most investors here did their dd and research to invest in a 2mtCuEq potential target that would trigger a buy-back and be rewarded on that basis. As it is now, with confirmation of a second very big porphyry and potential of multiple porphrys which, as suggested by theiceberg, will likely to be very similar in depth and orientation to racecourse which will be open cut mined. This has increased the probability that the project will be bought out simply through sheer scale. The potential to have a centralised processing plant that would serve both mines would make the projects CapEx ultra economical in relative terms. We are talking just of racecourse and Ascot at the moment. (Assays permitting)
The downside of course it will take longer, the upside would mean a higher sale price that takes into account the exploration and associated risks involved. The intensity of drilling required on these new targets will be of much debate in the coming months pitting cost v reward. The company is in a stronger position now to sell, than it was at the end of phase 1, and to get better value for shareholders due to more options available.

How’s the range trading going NTM? Have you been trading some xtract shares. It looks very tradable for the brave or the clever. I have been giving it ago with crypto. Can add range trading to my list of things I don’t understand, ie geology, math and women :)

Good spot Ella and Andrew I missed that, that makes more sense

Must have been last minute decision to do the webinar, I would have thought Colin would have mentioned it was scheduled in his last interview on 10th, but not a hint even. Sunday release was good idea, gives bods chance to take it all in before market opens. Would not be released by RNS stand-alone unless was linked in to a drill update for example. They called it mineralisation interpretation.
Let’s hope this helps keep the momentum going, very exciting few months to begin with ahead.

Yes you are correct Andrew. Also I believe it will also show an increased footprint over and above the existing conceptual pit. Seems Colin over exuberance was checked back with the offer of revealing that guesstimated ore body. Did feel it was a half arsed idea but with Ascot being realised should keep the market interested.

Didn’t get the ore body estimate but once again very strong suggestions it will not be an issue regardless of viability of Ascot. With it, then is a huge step up in resource. No reasons with this type of system, the grades will not follow the average grades of Racecourse.
Just think, two open cut mines running concurrently sharing a huge centralised production facility.
Thank you team for a solid update

One thing to consider also is the bigger picture, is one of, the economic fears the latest variant will do. It is a very cautious and jittery market at the moment and with a Xmas break coming soon will not have helped short term confidence. Pretty much all stocks on AIM are down considerably from the year highs. 2022 will be a positive year I’m assured.
Closer to home, as long as the forecast for meaningful income from Africa materialises and the market is duly informed, a new updated model is released with ongoing expected costings of further exploration this will be a catalyst for the market to react more positively easing the fears that further funding will be a necessity but as maybe an option to expedite more progressive exploration.

Commonly the 3 main reasons you would do PFS is firstly, as a basis to commit to a large programme or development, secondly to provide a justification for proceeding to a final feasibility study, or to attract a buyer, JV etc.

A post recently by captainbob, who attended the AGM, regarding what CB had quoted,
>>> At AGM he again talked about extension to 2024, and beyond being possible with comment if of course we are still the owners, he has also said on a couple of occasions that PFS/DFS is not a prerequisite to a sale.

I believe the smart thing to do is to have a PFS in place so if AA pass, on the opportunity to buy-back, then other majors interested can see the whole package on offer.

Could it be that discussions have already taken place with AA? They have given an indication of intent to buy-back EL5574, subject to the obvious terms in place being met. Could this be why CB feels DFS and particularly a PFS is not required.? If not, why not?

Colin was pretty clear it would not need DFS and would use internal valuation. It would therefore suggest the infill drilling to date in racecourse that would convert the inferred resource to an indicated JORC will be sufficient as only a measured JORC would be required for a DFS as Measured supports detailed mine planning and final evaluation of the economic viability. I’m certain scoping and PFS will be done as stated in the project license extension update, although it wasn’t DFS or PFS specific.

Previous comments from Colin that the updated resource model would be the calculated ore body mass and with different variables of estimated copper content to be confirmed with assays coming later. Also the assumption that it would be the increased ore from just the conceptual pit without any extensions beyond its limits. It appears now, this early new estimated resource may not arrive until after all assays are back from lab up to holes 28 and 30. The last of the holes from within the conceptual pit.
Focus has once again shifted it seems, from the original programme objective of proving up the 2mt from this drill phase, to now identifying not only a second system but potentially a third, the 2mt threshold is not relevant now as will, by far exceed this. The only reference Colin made in the latest interview regarding the model was that they were updating it as the ‘results’ were coming in. ‘Results’ would certainly imply assays
If there was still going to be a big reveal very soon I’m sure Colin would have took the opportunity to push it also. Always have felt a resource guesstimate was just to appease the market and get the share price moving. A definitive model with presentation would be worth waiting a little longer for.