Member Info for howezap

Could the fact the results came back from the higher grade that showed BOS tech may not be amenable for those first years, be a potential reason why the company will now not be spending any more money on drilling as to trigger the DtM AA option. As now, it will require a pre feasibility study to be based on the “whole” 512mt resource and not just the 191mt high grade early payback phase as the hope was that BOS pre concentration would have made the project economically viable from the initial 191mt.

If can recall some months ago the talk was of 8 or 9 year LOM, which would be just the 191mt high grade part that would have only required upgrading to indicated and maybe some measured, up from the 50mt ‘currently’ classified as indicated. A ball park figure to achieve that of 5-£6m+ could have been palatable Then more recently, the comment that they “will head toward pre-feasibility” does supports that theory.

Only indicated and measured resource classification can be converted to probable or proven ore reserves that a legally recognised pre feasibility study can be based on and that is the minimum that a financier requires to support financing package, which I believe that is the target that would be the requirement for the DrM as they could have then gone into the mine planning phase.

Judging by the comment made at AGM that will cost £8m to reach the 2mt target, I’m guessing the above scenario could cost far more than that, to convert all the 512mt to ore reserves and commission a PFS.

Stuff adds up that points to a sensible cut and run, but still just theories of course.

Wife on hen weekend in vegas! Can you tell?

When you consider back in May of ‘21, in a video interview Colin gave a good indication of what was expected for the DtM option to be triggered, saying,

“ once you get into the hard numbers and models, you can say we are starting an open pit and will develop the porphyry from that pit partially we”ll sink a shaft partially, so that one gets the benefit of the depth with the pit created”

It would now appear to have been a closer account of what was expected to trigger the DtM than was maybe later perceived by many shareholders including myself, in that the DtM was maybe an oz term that just meant that it would require the project to show economic viability to trigger that option.

So in that respect it could certainly be the best option now toward navigating out of the agreement by negotiating a royalty with AA.

Also worth considering, is that with the stronghold that AA has, they may themselves buy BR back, now that the project has potentially been de risked, to farm it out to a mid cap capable of working alongside AA as part developer and operator.

Got to remember, xtract have just literally scratched the surface of just the identified other targets including Ascot which could well go on to be the primary mine, as the gold and moly credits are more profound there. So a further scenario to farming it’s development out, is that although AA “at present” , for whatever internal political reason they may have for not wanting to operate in NSW, (if that is the case) they may not want to give up their overall right to exploit BR later themselves, either farming out just the ongoing exploration with a mid cap, or parking it up and doing it themselves later to prove any greater potential. In case that internal political stance may change at a later point prompting maybe buying BR back for now.

Could it leave xtract with a weak hand now both agr option targets are not going to be met. So best thing now is to just cut and run, as AA as sure as hell are going to play hard ball.

Hence Colin thinks they can get their money spent back and some more.

My rationale is that I don’t see this seemingly low value perceived as the projects true value. But can accept it maybe Colin’s, once more heavily discounted.

Hi Gordie

Been looking into ore sorting from the perspective of the waste material after a previous comment you made.

>>> It crossed my mind that there is a possibility the rejected ore from sorting could lend itself to bioleaching , thoughts ?

It’s obvious that ore sorting must create additional or increase revenue over the top what it would produce without the tech, which must also justify the investment and operation of that waste rejection step. Now of course the standard project evaluations, NPV and IRR, ultimately underline the economic viability of the chosen or preferred scenario that would include the waste cycle, but that’s one for the DFS or possibly in the PFS flowsheet am certain.

It’s clear though, the waste created, if not left on a rock dump or to be used as backfill underground later. It can be either sold as aggregate, stockpiled for cheaper processes, or put through and processed later in the operation, potentially using scavenger tech prior.

The interesting thing I read with bio-leaching is that it could potentially be far more environmentally sustainable than the usual hydro-metallurgical recovery method for low grade ore, and the fact is is a lot simpler a method it makes it far cheaper too.

All interesting but I don’t see it will be evaluated in any preferred mining scenario just yet, as the finished mining study will just give an early stage evaluation of potential economic viability, but it does look to be a strong possibility and particularly so if recoveries from pre-concentration cannot be vastly improved upon then is likely a further processing step of the rejected ore will certainly follow if of course the economics support it as it will also need to be able to increase revenue over the top of what it would produce without the process as with pre-concentration.

Economics will ultimately dictate.

Good question cheers

Yep was a strange week, that only goes to show now that the market is sceptical about anything positive that CB says. Almost a crying wolf scenario where the market is going to have to see the results of any positive forward looking statements first now, even if CB could, and implied a firm degree of certainty behind it any belief has disappeared, from familiar investors from the CB stable anyway.

At first it looked as though the share price was going to get hammered after the ‘disappointment’ comment that was singled out, but what was ignored largely was his further comments that Bushranger ‘will’ go onto be a mine and that he named three companies that are interested in the project.

(Courtesy of Captainbob notes)

What is he implying there but can’t let on due to the AA option in place.

I prefer to think Andrew, instead of doubting that many will be looking back pleased for not selling at 7p, I think in two years many will be thankful for Colin’s early hyperbole that did just enough to drag them along, some kicking and screaming when BR is eventually sold, and for a tidy sum.

The ones that didn’t decide to bail that is!

Lucky, here’s a thought. For the share price to march on, it will need an influx of new investors to take over when the disgruntled investors finally leave. Originally there was the financing overhang issue holding it back and will no doubt be held back with get out, or rebalance selling all the way up to 6p or so.

CB’s comment of ‘disappointment’ was either effing stupid or clever strategy to tip the weaker holders on the verge to finally bail releasing what is a shed load of shares at a low price to be taken up by new or existing more confident holders.

The current, confident investors with a longer term outlook “from this point on” are not overly concerned about the share price being where it is for time being at least.

Yours

Rampy Ramperton 😉

Hi flipper going by the DFS all of the ‘classified’ resource at fairbride is down to just 280m. I’m unclear of the pit optimisation model finalised for max depth but what is clear is that there will be a smooth transition engineered to finally go into the deeper sulphides when that time comes. At what depth achieved and ongoing mining method is uncertain as any ongoing pit extensions will now ultimately dictate I would have thought. Is a changing geological landscape so to speak from now on depending on what can be further added to the resource or reserves.

Quite a tease suggesting a new sulphide plant could be developed nearer to fairbride pit. Implications do seem to be that both would run concurrent potentially doubling throughput dependant on scale of course. If so, or that assumption is made, then the higher grade material would further increase xtract share of profits with up and above 2.62 g/t ‘average’ resource grade from the current 1.7g/t currently being mined from oxides when new plant is running. (2.62g/t average across all FB pit gold reserves of 215,000oz ) an increase of 50% more recovered gold from new plant on top of doubling up with both.

Leaving existing plant to process the oxides from satellite mines getting into the remaining 992,000oz with option to maximise capacity also with potential of processing out sourced material from artisanal mines nearby maybe. Incidentally Colin mentioned this is an option for theplant at Kakuyu in his podcast on the matter with Zak I think.

No way would they decommission the existing plant to move it to new site for its modular components.!! New plant would surely be standalone, ROM pad, crush and process to run concurrently alongside current plant it has to, if potential LOM across all exploitable gold is to be reduced.

Be interesting to see what size mill is being considered and scale of operation will deliver.

Every aspect, including exploration within the concession and evaluation and work to exploit new material will start to ramp up over coming few years into a much larger operation overall.

Manica has been unlocked!

Hardly waffle ma, just trying to give an opportunity to be able to base an NPV figure on toward value, other than just plucking a number out the air based on a comment from Colin

Just for a rough comparison toward a value based on potential NPV model. Assumptions can be made regarding reduced resource beyond 191mt high grade zone from recovery loss of BOS of lower grade. Majority inferred resource more heavily discounted upon final valuation.

Caravel at scoping study level back in 2018 had an NPV of A$1.1B, post tax IRR of 20% based on a resource of 662mt @ 0.28%Cu for 1.86Mt of contained Cu with a cut off of 0.15%. Producing free cash flow generation of A$3.1B from net revenue of A$10.6B over LOM

Similar open pit operation, not too dissimilar Cap Ex.

Consider about a 1/3rd of final BR NPV with be used as a rough valuation. Might just simply tie you in knots trying though but can envisage 100-200m value easily within reach within a couple years.

Why is 10p minimum seen as a bad return after re evaluating your position from 1-5p currently.

I’m sorry but it’s irrelevant what your averages are now, from here you investment is worth 1.5p to evaluate ongoing mid term investment strategy for BR alone.

Hi LW good question, we still argue CB interp of a Tier 1 mine.

His last comment on it was a project with over 1.5mt of copper!

It’s one of those grey sky areas

Hi billy the current NSR royalty is to AA from ongoing sale, but there will be nothing stopping Xtr adding either a ‘further’ onward sell on royalty payment to Xtr, or their own NSR royalty.

Many projects pay out any number of royalties for any number of reasons so not uncommon to have these attached. They range from indigenous land rights, accessibility, permitting issues, sell on royalties etc.

Will not put off an acquirer as generally accepted as part of the economic evolution of a project.

>>I believe it will be valued around 100-200m+ still from anywhere between 4-600m NPV

Re the above, is likely lower end if recoveries cannot be significantly improved on with pre-concentration as it will only exploit 50 up to 75% of copper inventory.

*Doesn’t take into account smaller plant Cap Ex and lower Op costs toward final NPV though

Let’s not be sidetracked on the viability of BR to deliver. Yes there may have been some disappointment with the bulk tonnage grade, most projects there will be element of disappointment from initial expectations. But as has been said, the pre-concentration gets those grades to where they need to be as the base line now which will improve as resource optimising continues.

I think the potential viability of a very large open pit mine of significant value is not so much the question, but the getting over the hurdle that is the buy back agreement ( have said it myself so many times)

As we know there is already a Net Smelter Return royalty attached if the project is sold on to third party. I doubt this will be affected if negotiating a get out, with the difficulty in proving the DtM. I would say a royalty payment would come from sale proceeds directly as a percentage.

Could be likely early discussions have taken place and there is an ‘understanding now’ at least. With Colin being able to make the comment that they should be able to take profit from the deal. (In other words)

It’s not that the project is worth only 10-20m $/£ that is absurd, it points to a ‘final’ NPV of being around $100m. I believe it will be valued around 100-200m+ still from anywhere between 4-600m NPV possibly way more with higher copper prices. With Colin not setting expectations too high for now, we could walk away with more than 50% sale proceeds . Xtract do 100% own BR after all and without then having to go through the buy back process and subsequent valuation under Valmin code, there is far more wiggle room to negotiate with a third party anyway that would favour the chunk that xtract finally could receive.

Don’t let the doom crew grind you down it still remains the same, reward will come from any sale with a proven economically viable study and not because of tonnage potential or because it’s now going cheap!

That was definitely the question Captainbob. Thanks for clarifying, that is a significant point that will please many that maybe felt the financial demands would put too much strain on the treasury. Although we still could be waiting a further year or two it dies change the dynamics to that of now being able to prioritise Manica without those uncertainties of greater cash flow needed for BR hence giving substance to CB’s comment that priorities will be toward Manica now.

Genius in making ma, problem solving at early age. At least, we hope was an early age!

This boy bunked his exams coz he got job on a building site. Was back in one day and heard a loud bark from headmaster, OY Shelby boy were you been?

Got a job sir.

He shook my hand and said “good on ya lad, you’ll be able to afford to pay your parents back when they find out you didn’t sit any exams when they get the bill for the missed exam fees!

My reply….. I’m working for my dad, but it’s ok sir I’ll go to the school office now and pay it myself 😂

>>Rolling in field laughing me head off

Making me peckish, might do myself some mushrooms on toast for lunch!

Skool dwopout fwend I get it now 😉

>>none of you said HELLO and WELCOME back after fateful 2359 post to dear Col.

Dani you are a Brer Rabbit. No one doubted for one minute you would not return.

Some may have hoped…….

Smart girl 👍

Ok, so after adding jamesiecakes notes to the others, (thank you James) the only real conflict I can see from notes going foreword are regarding further drilling.

Captainbob >> “it’s looking as though BR will not need more drilling”

James >> “It's also important to note that this won't be the final model and will go through numerous optimisations. “

I did say they will tweak the model until they peak the economic performance, they will no doubt try other pre-concentration, which again to chop and change is not uncommon. Caravel have left out completely their chosen BOS model that was in their scoping study, from their PFS in the hope that technological advances would improve to then incorporate in their DFS.

So the feedback from Bob could be that, no more drilling will be required, leading up to the next update of the economic model due Q3/4, but we could then see, further optimisation drilling being carried out along side the other resource optimisation work stated by James going into ‘24

Which does tally with what we already know and is the most likely as there will be further increases in resource gained from drilling, which will subsequently then be improved on further with the resulting resource optimisation.

Unless, if anyone who attended can either confirm or deny that they are ‘not’ going to be spending any more on drilling and will only use other resource optimisation to improve the economics after the updated model is released?




>>Still supporting that 30k payrise HZ??

Yes I am gixxer, he may not manage any of the projects directly but the buck stops with him to make the big decisions.

After hearing both camp attendees recollections there is absolutely nothing material we shareholders were not aware of before or hasn’t already been suggested or implied in previous podcasts or RNS.

Thank you Captainbob for your clarity.

‘If’ it’s looking as though BR will not need more drilling we can all but expect then, with copper at 10k/ton where the economics will show it to be ‘extremely profitable’, we could be looking to see IRR in region of 25% (implied by Colin) which would make the project desirable.

Ice suggested at least 20% I think. This is more important than NPV which will be interesting to see a gauge toward the value of project.

Business as usual

Good summary A4444

3-4 years from current mining phase of oxides into transitional with existing plant. Doubtful he would be implying it includes the second phase into higher grade sulphides as feasibility studies for new plant and to mine other satellites would need to be in place at least to be making any assumptions on them now.