Member Info for howezap

Early estimates after aquisition of the western foreland licenses on direct savings expected to be made from access to Anglo’s historic data pack, were first estimated to be US$1.5M in direct exploration costs during the first Phase 1 of the Joint Venture.

Those estimates are now expected to be a US$3m saving and the historic data is leading towards saving two years in early exploration too.

Sounds promising and can begin to understand now why Tolai of Cooperlemon in the Zambian special podcast had said they ‘expect’ to see results when drilling commenced.

Wouldn’t even like to guess foz

Doubt will get any kind of update until financial model has been reworked from resulting ongoing work.

That is:

Further studies are being undertaken focused on:

-Optimising Plant throughput capacity

-Metallurgical recovery and early stage waste separation

-Rationalisation of proposed CapEx

-Improvement in OpEx following the abovementioned reviews

Boring wait, but at least there is no desperate need to sell BR with income from the Manica disposal being drip fed in until ‘ 27 that will cover the ongoing operational expenses.

Bobs feedback comment from the recent GM that, “there seems to be an exit strategy from AA that is not too expensive” to me implies that they will negotiate a manoeuvre that allows them out of the AA buy back option agreement, retaining ownership. They would then be capable of offering BR to the global market but I would say only once, the fully updated Conceptual study is complete.

They would want to get BR as far up the value curve as possible before an official approach to AA. And that must be at this next study level as from ‘then on,’ any increase in asset value will cost many more millions in drilling but that value will be negated to a high degree through the resulting need of partner funding.

All theoretical based on the ongoing studies for BR so likely be down to one of the other assets to get the share price moving up.

There are other types of sorting tech to choose from btw so could well be a different company than NextOre to trial. Any of which must be able to detect either the copperl, a proxy for it or a gangue mineral for rejection. So options are not limited.

But as I said, as BR mineralisation is in association with pyrite/pyrrhotite, considered gangue or waste material. Its metallic/magnetic materials properties could be suitable for rejection.

still grates me how they should have known that with br’s copper being disseminated in that ****geneous matrix that cb eventually admitted, these ore type are typically not amenable to pre-concentration. but tomra is the preferred tech for this “usual” ore type as did show was ok for sorting the lower grades.

however , he did tell us about rc’s magnetic properties of its waste material being likely suitable as a candidate for sorting ‘before’ tomra were sent samples.

so am expecting they are now looking at a company called nextore that produce an on-conveyor mr analyser bulk ore sorter which is the tech trialled at cadia and a big mine in chile. it has been successfully trialed by scanning chalcopyrite copper ore grade which is far less magnetic than br’s waste material, which could see the magnetic resonance tech target the racecourse high grade portion waste material for detection and separation in the pre-concentration needed for a viable small mine concept they will hope to verify as this is where the significant reductions in capex and op costs will significantly improve npv.

you can bet on it br will be worth more than $20m if they nail on proof of concept for pre-concentration of the higher grade.




Time and an improving global economic climate could well see viability come to the project. Just how desiresble it will be once all costs to build a mine are included will see. He mentioned many moons ago that they will likely end up with a near surface drilling programme. Cannot rule out, that has not changed. It is still as far we know, as has been RNS’d that further drilling is in the planning stage. This no doubt to add further estimated 2-300Mt of resource to NW to improve economics “if” optimising doesnt wholly return the numbers they are looking for to support the fully updated conceptual study.

Also there is an alternative smaller mine concept he mentioned they haven’t looked into the economics of yet they could go with as a mining first phase.

Think he has been clear that money is not going to be spent on drilling to get to 2mt, pretty certain that would include taking it to Pre Feasibility too, with still no guarantee they can trigger the buy back as he said it is going to be difficult to prove the decision to mine AAL option.

So a JV to this effect is not likely.

All depends on what side of the mid price at the time the trade went through at to register as a buy or sell. Think theirs is a general misconception that an actual human being pairs up trades and sets the bid and ask. With hundreds of fledgling and small caps on AIM with such piddly volume, trading will be set by algorithms which also takes any of the human emotion out of setting day to day prices.

That figures!

At group level through his various companies, Colin and Co have been acquiring a diverse portfolio of these assets across his many companies to have an inventory of particularly copper resources that vary from jurisdiction, in size and evolution in their development. Ready for when the supply deficit reaches a point where these assets become sought after from producers that will see M&A activity increase due to the need to try to keep up with the demand requirements that will be coming which will be exasperated by increasing worsening supply headwinds that range from political agenda, depleting of existing mines and the lowering of mineable grades. Not only that we are in a changing world where social acceptance and tolerances of the environmental impact of mining is making it increasingly difficult for permitting new mines.

In Zambia particularly, along with many other places , there is government policy that supports and encourages new mining developments.

Sit tight, have the confidence to accumulate to bring those averages down so when it turns you will be better placed by ‘25 into ‘26 for when the deficit is expected to hit hardest going into a very long copper bull run that will last for a generation.

All his companies will be very well placed when M&A activity ramps up.

Cheers Bob that makes me see the sense in James’s concern regarding making Xtr just sit on it. I’m jumping a potential step obviously. Certainly a more feasible way for them to eventually farm it back out again to get it de risked further before a ‘developing’ major will put their money into it.

So let’s just get it up to the conceptual study, got a couple of years and plenty of optionality still to do it, then see what happens.

Also the other factor to consider toward improving the free cash flow status alongside an improving sustainable copper price and the optimisation of recovery rate and associated mining costs is a reminder that with seeing growth again in global economies it will inevitably reduce interest rates and also see fuel and power costs come down which will have a more positive, direct effect on the projects NPV than copper spot price.

I also blame Mr Bird for causing the global pandemic when he sneezed and for invading Ukraine. Utter b@s!@rd

Maybe it wasn’t from a podcast…

This from captainbob recent notes from GM

“Bush Ranger still very important asset, that it not forgotten, sort of thing majors want for inventory, regardless of wheter it will be developed or sit idle, seems there is an exit strategy from AA, that is not too expensive.”

Thats where I prob got it from about the exit so perhaps Bob can offer any further comment to substantiate from maybe a private conversation or just an assumption.

Hey James, fair one, but is all subjective in this big guessing game we are all ‘still’ playing I suppose.

He commented in one of the pod casts if I recall correctly regarding the relatively cheap exit. Or did I dream it ?

As any future BR development will be so heavily front end loaded, the extent of study work and drilling involved toward pre feasibility is crucial for it to be on the radar of any major, my rationale is that it makes no difference to AAL if the project is passed on through negotiation with an updated buy back agreement attached to the sell on clause that the next aquirer will be incentivised by. Someone else can take it to the next study level for them.

Your suggestion of a partner to get it to 2mt is not ‘at all’ unreasonable, however if through ‘choice’, I would question wether any financial benefits in the long run would be greater due to Xtr having to give away at least 50% if not far more, of the projects NPV that would ensure 3rd party full funding of an exploration programme that would not simply get it to 2mt, but also the absolute necessity to provide a supporting pre feasibility study with full mine plan with flowsheet design for any sale down the line to a developing major to be interested.

If there ‘is’ a relatively cheap exit, this has got to be in the best interests of shareholders to continue its current Zambian strategy.

Certainly have a mutual respect James you do keep me in check which is much appreciated.

Prospect ore/ xtr as good as the same thing.

Devised not designed

Sorry to be perdantic James

But of course in light of what Colin has told us about it being this legally binding agreement and the only way we can get out is if AA are decent enough to let it go. So agree It could be a concern. However he has back tracked on that apparent grip they had then, to now just suggesting there is a relatively cheap get out.

Maybe his comment is based on the fact that now neither of the buy back options are going to be met AAL will want another explorer to take it further , it’s in their interests to with their royalty attached that can now be increased.

Why would they make xtr sit on it and wait for what?

Doubts a major would take it on without its PFS so likely a consortium or mid cap miner

I still believe the buy back agreement, was devisedt to act as a marketing tool of which proved to be quite effective.

So I don’t think it’s a case it is water tight. Got to remember, Jeremy Reid came with BR from AAL where he was head of exploration.

Its wording is really vague toward decision to mine, with a number target that is just plucked out the air. (CB quote)

It gives AAL the opportunity to renegotiate the NSR sell on royalty if they don’t want it. For all we know CB has had talks already. One of the assumptions in the pit optimisation assessment was the royalty set at 4%. Why would they round it up from 3.5%?

Also to take into consideration along with increase in copper price is ‘resulting’ impact on increase in free cash flow after the optimisation of operating costs, metallurgical recovery rates, plant capacity and capital costs that are still ongoing. They included an illustrative 17th scenario based on reduction in processing cost and compared with same mining parameters for it produced an extra US$425m free cash flow on top from that reduction in processing costs.

This optimisation all in, is expected to have a positive effect on the economic performance when done, metallurgy recovery rates will improve from re sampling. The first sighter round only had 3 samples taken from RC, the other from the 4 total was from Ascot. The 3 from RC included a low reading of 78% from one in the NW that brings the average down to 88% used in all scenarios, so warranted more work. Other 2 had recovery rates of 89-90%.

Along with what you have illustrated james, it’s not difficult to see how BR free cash flow can swing positively to give a ‘lower’ break even and hopefully produce a good enough cash margin once CapEx is included.

Think BAM may go same way as Pebble NtM

Both in highly environmentally sensitive regions which maybe why there is difficulties in selling.

Permitting will rely heavily on ESG due to its location nearby to lakes and watercourses.

Bushranger however……

Finding the Ascot crown has no relevance whatsoever to what they ‘need’ to show to justify drilling to find it.

BR is far more valuable with a financially viable mining concept than just the amount of contained copper eq. Nobody is likely to buy it without one!

Due to the very nature of porphyry huge bulk tonnages and total necessity to have on site processing leading to huge capital outlay. ( imagine the cost to haul 10m tonnes of ore PA off site! ) A viability of concept along with all the data surrounding the resource model is crucial to give an acquirer the financial and geological justification and confidence to take the project further.

The project value will be derived from an NPV model first and foremost, they will ‘then’ pay for what is in the JORC only, which will see discounted to reflect being only inferred.

Xtr just need to produce numbers that work to do this and sell, an acquirer might throw many more millions at BR and show that there is an alternative concept leading to feasibility that involves Ascot in that payback phase.

Xtr have really still only scratched the surface of what is in Bushranger.

You miss the point Cygnus 1.5-1.6 mt is no good if it cannot be all used in a viable mining concept, it was far more important to utilise as much of the lower grade bulk tonnages as budget would allow. We already have the RC high grade parcel that will kick start the projects early payback phase.

“never did understand that ploy....”

Before Ascot was identified as a seperate porphyry the vision/dream was that the potential size or amount of the racecourse open pittable material would extend all the way through to, and to include the southern anomoly (Ascot). With the disappointment that the grades between southern RC and Ascot were too low to see them join up RC and Ascot as a 3km long single mining concept. If so the economics would have been far stronger toward the overall financial performance of the model due to economy of scale, that has been recently released.

So was very important indeed.

Xtr now need to get the best economic performance out of the financial model from the material just from RC which is why Ascot material has not been included at this time in a mining concept due to it being isolated.

Far more drilling to Ascot and RC may change the dynamics but won’t be for xtr to do.

Maybe why he doesn’t want to go there again.

Even as far back as when Auroch minerals produced the feasibility study for fairbride, xtr put it under review. This was primarily toward the initial mining phase but the same risks will always be there.

Mining consultant Daan van Heerden of Minxcon had said: "The Manica study has produced a robust project targeted toward simplicity and predictability. We concur with managements approach to the concession and agree that the previously announced hybrid approach might have led to enhanced capital and operating risk."

Hybrid approach was surface then going straight into underground mining.

Point being risks are real and is not smoke to justify selling up just to go chasing rainbows. Could argue management were reluctant to go UG from day 1