Member Info for howezap

‘Mutual agreement’

Fair point Bob.

If any concerns lie with with being a minority partner again such as was with MMP, that was undoubtably more concerning going forward without having a say going into UG minining and plant design with increased exposure to risk that wasn’t palatable. XTr have a good working relationship with Cooperlemon and Oval mining going into far simpler mining method altogether.

I think we are going to end up going down a rabbit hole with this one. The term in there ‘by mutual concent’ maybe has more relevance here.

They couldn’t possibly know yet wether there is av300kt resource or not as they are only in the early drilling phase.

I think to not be committed to the lions share of development and exploration expenditure can only be considered a good thing.

Xtracts initial Silverking earn in phase was completed by them spending 500k on ‘exploration’ only, sealing the JV with 51%.

From then on the JV is then structured to enable either party to increase/decrease their stake which will be as a result from their participation toward ongoing expenditure on both exploration ‘and’ development.

So currently as it goes, we could be seeing an equal split depending on how much we buy into the plant by committing to development costs by mutual concent.

The dump material purchased was stated as being an ‘investment’ in the RNS. So would take from that, it will be acted on when we see sustainably higher copper price.

So, that would be soon then I guess!

Not to say they are not starting a far smaller op with basic equipment first off, but the real prize will be on volume with a flotation plant if all goes to plan.

When he was talking about forming a partnership he was, I believe talking altogether about a more serious operation, than what was ‘envisaged’ to start with in that RNS you mention Jez. With a plant costing around a million and a half. At the end he couldn’t give kev a size for the plant until they know they can find enough ore for an 8 yr run ‘then’ be able to size the plant.

This doesn’t sound like pi55ing about with small artisanal mining with basic equipment that is only going to cost 200k to get up and running mentioned in the half year report where you can put two and two together

Small and Larger Scale Mine Development

The parties anticipate that the collaboration could rapidly progress towards small scale mining. Any small-scale mining operation developed will utilise Wildstone's own contractors, and the capital funding for the operation of US$200,000 will be provided by Xtract, who will be allowed to recover the initial capital by being paid 75% of free cashflow. Xtract shall be responsible for all small-scale development funding until such time as the operation is demonstrating a surplus income over expenditures (including sustaining and maintenance capital). On full capital repayment, Xtract will be entitled to 60% of all profits.

The small-scale development will continue during the exploration phase and will be replaced or may run concurrently if the potential for a larger more sophisticated processing plant is identified (larger scale development). For the purposes of defining potential for a larger scale development, the criteria to be used is not less than 5 years mine life at a minimum annual throughput of 150,000 tonnes, with a DCF model demonstrating a payback of not more than 18 months and a return on investment not less than 20%.

Xtract will be expected to fund 100% of the larger scale development, anticipated to be US$1million on the plant design, construction, implementation and commissioning. On commencement of production, Xtract will receive 60% of cashflow for capital recovery, the remainder will be shared 70% to Xtract and 30% to the existing shareholders in Wildstone. This arrangement will continue for 18 months, or until the capital is fully repaid, whichever is the shorter. After the completion of the 18-month period, the profits will be shared 80% to Xtract and 20% to the existing shareholders.

At least we know xtract are not having to stump up all the costs for a small mine which was a concern to me, as they are looking at it in two stages now, developing a small mine, along side wider licence exploration and evaluation that will be ongoing.

Oval mining are the license owner who are represented by Cooperlemon, but are bound by the terms of the JV. They were always going to be the mining contractor so is likely they who are stumping up the development cost toward the small mine of which Colin said they may still put money toward.

As I suggested many times the structure of the JV works in favour of and is there to protect both parties, so why should it be a concern? Particularly as it is now more evident the risk burden is going to be shared with xtract maybe not now having to commit to the lions share of ongoing exploration too, which they would not be committed to if their partners can stump up their commitment from the small scale mining operation.

There will no doubt be a lot to sort out before they can confirm actual split, if decision on funding the mine are still ongoing.

Essentially where the mapping out of the JV is concerned toward advancing it, they have now decided to fast track a small mining operation with the view of increasing it in scale once the global resource is better understood toward extending mine life.

Oh I see JDAU, I took what was your quote from Andrews post. So wasn’t actually responding to yours directly.

I think many still do not understand or appreciate the effect the new Altrius study will have. In particular response to others why they cannot just simply plug in the new numbers and let us know. Is that now with pre concentrating it completely changes the more cost intensive down stream processing and operating costs.

So to come to credible financials, the results of the Altrius study would potentially need to be sent to Optimal Mining Solutions for financial assessment. There will be trade offs that have to be considered such as copper gold recovery losses and the capital cost of the additional step in the flowsheet design along with new assumptions that need to be made toward revised OpEx.

‘Mathematically’ only a 1mt per annum throughput rated processing plant is required, delivered from a mining rate of 20mt per annum

Way too much changes for the company to confidently be able to do a revision themselves, there would be financial reporting restrictions anyway plus, to attract an interested third party the financials would need validating by independent expert consultancy.

"We can clearly see that capital costs have already been estimated"

Not yet they haven’t. They still havnt looked into the capital cost of a smaller plant.

NovaCell reduces the overall mass of material that will then go onto the more cost intensive down stream processing right down to only 5% of that original mass of you read the half year report.

The estimates given for capital in the financial study are toward the 20mtpa and 10mtpa processors. The economics have still not been interrogated with a smaller plant. likely to be with an even smaller concentrator than 10mtpa throughput rate.

They had looked at a mining rate of 5mtpa from the high grade, but that is not the same. Mining rate is likiely still to be 20mtpa but with the mass reduced down by pre concentrating.

The company only need to do enough to attract investment or buyer to take BR to pre feasibility. But as cb has specifically said on a few occasions now, that they will not be any further drilling to improve the economics it bodes well that the current economics with the NovaCell flotation are positive enough to see BR advance to next study level.

These are far from being robust pre-development economics.

It won’t cost billions, pre stripping and developing the open pit are already included with the mining costs, it was only the cost of plant and infrastructure that was not included, with cost estimates already given in that study. Where are you getting billions from? Even considering 40% increase in build costs since.

Anyway, can only wait and see where it goes. I’ll say no more until then.

Also BR CapEx with a smaller plant footprint was estimated to be sub 1Billion USD not 5-10b for comparison.

“ Unless I've missed something in what he was saying?”

Not what was said but what was finally confirmed in the half year report.

~ A two-stage review of potential ore pre-concentration methodologies was completed in the previous reporting period by Altrius Consulting Pty. The study aimed to assess the potential impact of ore pre-concentrate upgrade on the overall financial viability of the project.

The study concluded that coarse particle flotation tests, using advanced NovaCellTM kinetic flotation equipment technology provided the best results, yielding 78% of copper mineralisation into only 5% of the mass, achieving an upgraded pre-concentrate product of 2.8% Cu. The study also concluded that NovaCellTM coarse particle flotation recovered 30% more copper than conventional flotation, and therefore it is concluded that the use of NovaCellTM kinetic technology on any future operation developed at Bushranger will have a significant positive impact on the processing costs of the copper-gold mineralisation, increasing mine viability.

Work continues to evaluate and progress the Bushranger project towards operation. ~

11k breakeven was based on the previous study, not only will pre concentrating reduce op costs but a smaller plant and concentrater will reduce CapEx. Along with gold substantial rise since the previous study will have a further profound effect on the project economics.

Breakeven could now be sub 10.5 maybe even sub 10k. Hopefully a revised pit optimisation summary based on the incorporation of the NovaCellTM will follow including CapEx estimates this time to give project NPV and IRR to be able to start to seriously compare with other similar projects of scale.

Definitely didn’t dream it Gixxer.

I’ll put it on XTr TG

Remove all spaces

htt ps :/ / t. me /c/2022969460/97660

hilarious, no holding back this guy,

he does have a point 😂

*************c/2022969460/97660

GLR do not have income no, but they would have allocated funds for exploration that would have covered permitting, site access improvements etc and early reconnaissance round of sampling, geophys interpretation and modelling toward defining their drill targets. Wether they have funding for drilling set aside I have no idea

Lifted from Zambian exploration strategy RNS 8feb ‘24

“Long-term alliances formed with senior Zambian exploration companies and entrepreneurs and consultants with deep exploration experience in Zambia have created a strong platform for Xtract. There are clear cost benefits from the use of consultants with common geological skills, mobile assets and logistics/administration staff operating in the same geographic region.”

Had to impression through further comments in a podcast that GLR particularly were also benefitting but my recollection of that now could be a bit off. Unless anyone has a better recollection!

Ok so maybe the wording I used was not appropriate for what I was suggesting. We were however, informed they were pooling their resources and sharing data with GLR and potentially AFP in the western forelands, so would conclude that there would be some advantages gained there that a sole explorer would not recieve and of course potential cost savings involved too.

“They are going to start with 8000 tons of copper per year.”

When mining starts, it will take time to strip the overburden and then get to a point where they have pre concentrated ore stockpiles on the rom pad at the plant enough to implement their ore blending strategies to provide the processor with a stable consistent head grade from an abundant source of already stockpiled supply feed. The plant will then start up and go through a first ore commissioning phase potentially using some weaker ore that is not necessarily from the actual mine plan material and production will then ramp up over a period of time as additional ongoing upgrades to the plant or infrastructure are potentially but more likely to be required in that respect as operations progress. So I think 8000 tonnes will be achievable but whether that will take 6 to 18months to ramp up ‘after’ the initial mining phase that will be the question but a realistic assumption.

I say this as hugely unlikely they would simply start processing the first spoonfuls as soon as it arrives on the rom pad. It has to be blended for consistency for the set up of ongoing processing to achieve maximum recoveries.

A funding solution to get it to first ore commissioning phase can not come soon enough, not only for BZT but for the rest of the CB stable.

“These companies are supposed to be seperate entities and should not have their affairs influenced by one of the others at all.”-jez

That’s true but they are all operated at group level sharing resource pool, inter group loans etc so there will be common use resource efficiency and some reduced overhead structure at group level.

So although are each run as seperate entities, there are clearly some advantages toward having multiple companies so why not use them in an ‘overall’ strategic approach to marketing to encourage investors of one company to jump across to another keeping the current cash investment within the group as well as to attract new investors.

“Of course we lapped up the BR hype, but if it was at the expense of his other companies that would have been wrong.”- jez

Don’t think you can say it is yet at any expense to other companies. But in some of the earlier Bzt interviews, Colin often hijacked them to go on about BR at every opportunity and even muddling the company names up once, mistakenly calling Bzt xtract but funny how they didn’t edit that out of what was a Bzt paid for promotional podcast!

I agree Andrew paid for promo that should be taken lightly as questions are structured toward Colin.

But kev regularly posts supporting XTr on various other platforms such as Archers TG group as well as the XTr TG group that’s all I’m suggesting.