Member Info for howezap


Just a reminder of Bushranger’s overall potential, beyond just those two identified porphyry intrusions. 



There is the western lobe as big as Ascot identified in the historic geophysics half a km west of Ascot and below RC still having yet to see a drill bit. If further drilling is done to the north to increase the resource, then this huge anomaly has got to be looked at. 

Also is the solitary borehole 33 drilled into an eastern outlying anomaly and see it hit 15.5g/t has great potential with assay summary said it warranted follow up drilling to test strike length and dip, but don’t think it’s likely anytime soon. 



Holes 38&39 that identified 2 near vertical mineralised gold structures with indications they increase in width and grade at depth. Also warranted further drill testing, but again not a priority with what already needs doing.



Early indications of deeper porphyry under RC From hole 16 . RNS - Elevated gold values (40m @ 0.23g/t Au from 596m) below the main Racecourse porphyry body, along with a coincident IP anomaly, suggest that a secondary porphyry body may occur at depth below the main Racecourse Central Porphyry Intrusion. 



Important for now or next, the IP geophys identified two ‘new areas’ of interest and also significantly identified a fault up to the north east of RC, this is where the resource can be increased as is already a known mineralised corridor.

Have only scratched the surface of Bushranger, important for now though is to show an economical mining model to attract further funding options or attract a buyer.

Correct Cazbraz as ASX is the primary listing

…..all the best gold has been mined out!

Don’t get me started!

Of course Aeris thank you.

SK already has an in house resource of 268,971 tonnes at 2.7% Cu at a 0.5% Cu cut-off for the just the main Silverking breccia pipe estimated by an external contract geological company commissioned by Glencore.

The ‘step out’ drilling would have already increased the resource size, could have already exceeded the 300,000 tonnes threshold, but of course that is a non JORC resource.

It is not a brown field exploration project, it is centred around a historic high grade mine with a known current resource that basically requires infilling so it can be legally reported against and to what extent the step out drilling can be bought into it to increase further.

So those blind exploration risks are ‘largely’ mitigated against with essentially already having a banker resource in a well understood region.

On any degree of success, XTr will do very well out of it.

My forum fodder wise crack was not aimed at the many good members who have posted today! You know and I know who you all are.

No disrespect intended.

Thought best check in this evening to see 350 posts to trawl back through but only got as far as SAS post ….”Another DICK put in the trash can tonight.” 😂😂

Guess that sets the tone so would someone kindly sum up today’s forum fodder in 3 words please, thank you very kind and save me the time and disappointment.

Hi jackbal if to meet you somewhere in the middle how about this scenario, the structure of the JV also protects XTr from committing to a potentially large development scenario down the line and being too bogged down with funding commitments. CL may well be in a better position to bring in a mid tier miner if they decided to increase their holding with the option to take them back up to 70%.

30% of a viable large scale mining operation would be inherently more valuable than 51% of an exploration project that would cost xtract too much in either dilution or having to give some of their 51% away to a backer, or equity funding along with the risk burdens that go with mine development.

Just saying that any JV deal ultimately also protects both parties. Be easier money wouldn’t it?

Best, Guy

CL are consultancy, they do not have the resources, access to the capital requirements or the expertise to advance SK with XTr being anything other than a majority partner. They work ‘with’ mining companies. It’s not their business model to go forward like that.

The contract allows them to participate if they decide to stump up half of the $1m perhaps where both would retain their current 49-51%

Xtr have 51% now giving them that controlling interest for that very. reason.

Contract just states ‘up to’ 70% so the wording after is reflecting of that. But just don’t see them stumping up even half.

Looking at it with some common sense.

Hi lucky, from the 3/4/24 RNS when SK JV was announced, it reads to me as the 2nd phase buy in is reciprocal.

…..Xtract may then advise Cooperlemon of its intention to increase its interest in the Licence to 70% by agreeing to spend a further US$1,000,000 over two years on exploration and development of the Licence, subject to Cooperlemon's right to maintain its interest in the Licence through an option to earn back up to 70% by participating in such ongoing expenditure.

After a bit of swotting up on VTEM (versatile time domain electromagnetic) surveying is pretty cool how it works. Same principle as the usual EM we are all familiar where it would map underground conductive materials by ground or helecopter/drone mounted.

This works slightly different in that this ground VTEM system operates in the time domain, meaning it,“measures the decay of the induced electromagnetic field over time. This allows for the detection of various types of conductors, including those associated with mineralization.”

The Kitumba mine a few kilometres away from SK mentioned was first identified with VTEM. Also the Kamoa-Kakula project in the DRC is one of the largest copper discoveries in recent years. VTEM surveys were key in identifying the mineralization in the area that was followed up with targeted drilling.

Has some pedigree then, so they must have reasonable justification to warrant the added expense and with it also being used on another Xtract license nearby, is promising too.

Good news too is their Buy in phase of 51% interest in SK under the JV is now fulfilled after spending $500k on the project so far. Next milestone could be up to the 70% JV interest phase buy in, in what is looking to have good potential to either mine it themselves or attract a bigger company to get involved.

No jez not Ai lol or PR, just a happy bunny seeing Manica income finally giving something back.

Was just adding bit more to Arts last post and making the point that although Silverking is looking it could be of some significance and see some focus put on it, RC is still as important as it has always been.

Typical porphyry low grade deposits are more cost sensitive as they require lower cut off grades to be economic on start up, than other ore type high grade deposits like Silverking that can be profitable at much higher cut offs so there are potentially less financial risk involved in acquiring earlier on in the life cycle of the discovery. Unlike huge low grade deposits such as BR that need a viability study to support it before an interested party would consider buying. CapEx requirements are far greater and a starter mine needs to pay it back over the first few years before going on to mine anything else extremely cheaply for potentially decades with only ongoing CapEx and Op costs

No none could have rationally predicted the global 5hit storm that would ensue that started with the fallout from Covid over past few years. Was unfortunate timing to have financed the acquisition deal with that degree of dilution from the fundraise particularly. Things may have been a little different and 14p could have been the floor in a different economic climate. ALL junior resource stocks had been hammered down let’s not forget. There is a complete disconnect with quality asset values v market caps from the highs of ‘21 across the sector.

“Opera is worth a download for LSE, also great for the dark mode and text scaling particularly on the phone.”

Second that, good for blocking all those ads but only small drawback it doesn’t save any search or browsing history. But can see how that may appeal to some!

“If Greatland runs into liquidity issues during the development of that mine and experiences a huge correction in its share price,blah blah…….- aqua

Ok benefit of the doubt, yes with 100% ownership, GGP take on 100% of the risk in developing Hav. There is a 17% contingency for engineering development issues on the base case mining plan already. This will be re evaluated in the DFS to reflect the increased costs for optimisations to the mine over the base case.

Normal cost structuring to have contingency funds in place for engineering works in any major development.

Are you for real aqua

“Clear reasoning, growth, as described.”

Spot on CP, accelerated growth. There’s two distinct types of fund raise, one to pay debt, index fees, keep lights on etc. the other is for a genuine growth opportunity so should be viewed as a positive move and not un surprising considering their aggressive growth rhetoric they have clearly stated is their intent.

We would have something to moan about if they didn’t persue these various opportunities in that respect.

What you need to take into consideration is over the past two or three years or so the resource sector has seen a huge re rate. 49 billion GBP was wiped off the value of all companies on AIM just in 2021-22 alone. Those companies in the resource sector particularly, that did not have any incomes or revenue were hit hardest.

We are now seeing some green shoots of recovery in the sector, but where that leaves most mining and exploration juniors is still at rock bottom market caps. Yes there is value to be found amongst most of our peers, but they have mostly been left dead in the water, projects parked up, companies in care and maintenance to ride out the down turn over past couple or three years and now still without access to capital markets without heavily discounting to raise sufficient funds at minimal dilution for exploration programnes to even see the potential to release that value from prize assets, so leaving little competion for new money wanting back in to the sector.

Greatland was one of those companies not too long ago, but since acquisition of the farm, are not only attracting new money from Institutional and the high net worth investors, but have been siphoning old money out of all those other juniors on positive news flow! Come on own up you all know who you are, most have probably sold some elsewhere to buy more GGP.

This siphoning alongside new money, will continue to happen on cross listing as the Oz also, will be looking for value in their sector where there is current undervalue to be found.

Guy

Occsionally happens where an agreement is made party to party to transfer shares from one to other. Likely then that one of those transactions relates to the sell, the other to the buy. Executed both sides of the deal at exactly the same price, no margin, no market maker.

‘Generally’, all trades are matched trades and are reported as either a buy or sell depending on what side of the mid price they were executed which can add to confusion. Mid price trades usually reported as unknown.