Member Info for howezap

Have to consider Greenlands current political uncertainties as a factor. Revenues will inevitably be the man driver by end of year, should be no real concerns otherwise.

Do agree with you Ben wholeheartedly, was just emphasising the strategy for doing so would not necessarily be to achieve minimum dilution from a potential fundraise this time round.

Was actually being respectful to the idea that a lot of investors would be very cynical of CB’s motive if we were to see another ‘heavily’ saturated period of constant news releases. Once bitten the saying goes. But as I said there are other reasons why it is better to have a higher market cap so bring on a more measured PR drive, and certainly not an RNS at the beginning of a hole, one at the end of hole and one on progress during! How ridiculous was that?

Resource uplift and LOM extension is the driver for growth that as CP highlighted, will see them going into engineering study work for modular upgrades to the plant, to increase the throughput rate from 300 to 450t per day with extra milk and flotation. This comes as the plant is still in its commissioning phase to increase to current nameplate capacity of 300t per day. Very progressive strategy indeed, although still early days, but shows good intent.

Hoping Archer will give an up to date health check on full year results too, he is an experienced financial analyst as well as a freelance investment writer.

Already did the over saturated PR drive for BR and successfully pulled off its phase 2 funding requirements. Not sure there is a need to see that kind of approach to PR here with the companies current income stream. However it’s more advantageous to have a higher market cap in terms of being in a far superior negotiating position. So will no doubt see PR kick in at some point.

When Shaun implied running at 120% it was in reference to when switching to a single train processing op. Current mills are operating at about 85% efficiency each. it will become far more efficient to run one single mill at 120% supplied by both crushers as it is these that appear to be where a bottleneck in the beneficiation process is. Currently there are advantages the dual train offers right now, but ultimately operating a single mill should increase profitability by savings on power and a reduction in water usage, likely time when Hav ore comes into the mine plan. Will become clearer in the DFS.

Latest offering from Archer on point,

https://open.substack.com/pub/thatstocksguy/p/xtract-resources?r=4j2ztm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

Read and digest, is looking very promising going into ‘25 and beyond.

Also Chilibwe, currently being drilled, or has already seen some drilling with any material results to be reported. These if decent could come at any time.

There has been 3 months passed for XTr to have evaluated and trial work tested the purchased ore dump material they were taking away from one of the sellers various sites. Must be due an update on this, Colin seemed upbeat about the contribution to cash flow to potentially cover company operating costs and more. If further sampling and test work is positive from the site where the material was purchased from. This could go into commercial production quite quickly with low risk and very little capital outlay.

Bread and butter income to reduce risk of cash raises medium term. Really important for XTr to become self sustaining.

The Moroccan JV is one am looking forward to understanding more on.

much historic mining in zambia particularly, had targeted only the higher grade sulphides with lower grade material not even put through the plant, as back then it just wasn’t deemed worth it. there are litterally millions of tons of these circa < 1-1.2%cu ‘ore dumps’ that can go straight to processing at low cost as it’s already to surface, it’s not even mining it’s basically muck away!

also there have been advances in tailings scavenger tech to extract the very lowest grades at bulk scale that will become increasingly viable with sustainably higher copper prices. telfer tailings could be amenable to co**** particle flotation to recover the copper left behind?

there is opportunity and good money to be made generally, lower margin maybe, but a lot lower risk and not heavy capital front end loaded!

the jlp model is good 👍

First 3 holes will have been assessed by now, with the drill team waiting on standby, to continue with a few more holes to focus on better understanding the main pipe structure before moving on to drill the second pipe and other nearby targets. So is looking to be a fairly decent drill program, with potentially only six holes needed to generate the extra infill and extension data to allow for a high-level estimate of the potential cumulative tonnage of mineralisation adding to the current in house estimate to be able to start development planning and can complete high level estimates of the likely pit depth as well as a stripping ratio.

Assays have been scheduled so could mean they will be batched in small groups of maybe 3. As for timescale could expect anywhere between 4-8 week for results at a guess. So may get further progress report before assay results.

What can we expect from Silver King?

It’s not dissimilar to the early discovery of Racecourse, in that RC started out with a compliant JORC resource, and XTr just had to increase it.

Although Silver king does not hold a compliant resource ,exploration will be carried out wirh the geological knowledge and understanding underpinned with having an in-house, non compliant resource estimate. This was commissioned by Glencore in 2012 and estimated 268,971 tonnes at 2.7% Cu at a 0.5% Cu cut-off for the main Silverking breccia pipe only. That is the ace Xtr hold from the historic open pit and with wider exploration across identified geological trends that are well understood there is huge potential for further discoveries too.

Glencore were targeting a tier 1 deposit. Xtr JV ideal ‘target’ is toward a far less significant 500kt resource, of which they are already over half way there.

There is no deal to be made at 10-20m why would they if offered it? They don’t need capital from BR yet But yes, any offer would have to be taken seriously and go to shareholder vote. Wait, and then with optimised economics that will eventually support a positive NPV at a favourable discount rate and IRR then project value can be derived more from basing it on an actual NPV model.

So it’s in all our interests to wait for the updated study work, at the very least.

Meant to add, Will XTr be able to tag along for the ride when that time comes to partner up with a mid tier or will they want to take it forward on their own with equity funding?

Selling it outright is the other option. The important point here is there are going to be clear options still on what is the best way to return shareholder value, we bloody well deserve it!

Good posts Ben, the best thing is although the share price had spiked with those early holes into RC, there is a still a long way for project value to be pushed up on the first wave of Lasonde curve. The discovery phase is well and truly still alive and kicking, plenty of meat on the bone for a mid tier to take BR onto and beyond its pre feasibility study to check out with a major who would then take over onto development and funding phase where they can absorb the rerating that follows the first big wave, as generally PI’s move on to the next shiny thing.

See your point James, prob not the best use of the word binding in that context. Maybe the preferred line should have been that, although the agreement is likely still in place, I don’t believe it holds the same significance that it did previously In terms of binding XTr to it in light of Colin’s comment regarding a relatively cheap get out.

Howzat 😉

“He usually only goes on there to spout bulcaca that he can't say in an RNS.” - 3cb

Seems a popular opinion that I’m not going to try to dispute, but what I will say is that people generally only hear what they want, Colin has actually been very transparent at times. Example being comments fairly recent regarding options in the way BR can be monetised and on the PFS. But further back he has openly discussed the legality of the buy back agreement in that the only way xtract can be free from it is if AA are kind enough to let them out of it. Moving forward to fy23/24 AGM he had said that there is now a relatively cheap get out from it.

Seems likely then AA have been approached at some point as is not likely that either of the AA options will be met with Colin also saying that the decision to mine is going to be very difficult to prove without genuine intent (even with its PFS and a letter of intent from a financier to support development funding pending a bankable DFS)

In answer to your question cboney think we could assume that the agreement is not binding anymore. But AA do have a NSR royalty due to them if BR goes on to be developed by others. So there are still likely to be ties to them in any ongoing negotiations with third parties.

It’s the ore sorting to reduce the waste rock after primary crushing that is just causing the slight difference in its role in the flowsheet design with the way we differ in interpretation of that aspect.

I think however its interpreted it still remains a type of pre concentration step. That is where the simple confusion lies.

Particularly if a sensor based sorter is used to divert barren or mineralised rock that has no economic worth. With metallurgical and physical test work carried out to see how it presents itself on the conveyor for mechanical chute or high pressure air separation. The DFS should highlight the preferred technology as there are various types.

Every single mine on the planet uses some form of pre concentration for any number of different reasons, so to reduce the amount of waste rock being hauled by road train what economic cut off will they use and what mass yield could be expected from the sorting begs a good question? And can we even see a grade uplift due to pre concentrating/sorting?

Yep I get you Bamps, thanks for that. So any sorting will essentially be through grade control at the mine face and not through any UG primary crush and mechanical sorting?

Guy

“Other optimisations are needed to reduce waste rock entering the plant, additional sorters for one at Havieron prior to transport.” - Bamps

Hi bamps

I see you are now coming round to the idea of looking at the benefits of on site pre concentration of Havieron ore. 👍😊

The combination of Telfer and Havieron is the ‘only’ scenario to consider. Extremely robust economic evaluation has been carried out on the most profitable and ultimately sustainable mining operation, which places the reliance equally on one another to achieve that. Final optimisation of the ultimate mining operation for Havieron will be detailed in the DFS which is a Bankable study that will support the financing of Hav development to production at Telfer.

Leveraging the Telfer infrastructure and plant to process the high Quality, high grade Havieron ore at low AISC is always going to trump ‘any’ seperate processing and infrastructure operations. Particularly in such an early stage too, in Greatlands evolution as a producer. That is defining in itself.

Apologies to be blunt Paulstoked, but it is a pointless discussion.

Best, Guy

“People should have not had stop losses on”

Should at least set realistic prices and steer clear of rounding down to obvious next whole or half numbers. Market makers will simply move the spread about to pick them up. By setting a stop loss, you are placing a sell order for them.