Member Info for howezap

In layman’s Dani, the RNS is basically proof that the concept of bulk ore sorting, just one of many different types of pre-concentration techniques, works.

A further boost for the project, although is of still a low technical level to have any real consideration placed on it just yet, but as a concept, yes as its inputs at his time, are adequate to support conceptual/scoping study level.

So should not be looked upon as if it were a golden ticket that is going to propel the projects economic performance to the moon. But more complimentary to the resource model providing a further range of production scenarios toward finding an economic sweet spot and pushing the project a step closer toward the AA option.

So overall is certainly positive.

>> what are you on about ?

Another way of letting you know that Ma has been sitting on her Ass all afternoon!

Soz almost forgot the question………A raffle.

Good one gord, I was going to put the updated conceptual feasibility study but my failed state education won’t stretch to being able to accurately decipher this paragraph from the RNS.

>>The continuing economic study by independent consultants Optimal Mining will model the impact of TOMRA pre-concentration on the overall economics of the Project, while we also consider other pre-concentration routes for Bushranger ore and we look forward to releasing an updated economic model for the Bushranger Project."

Upon reading it half a dozen times! I’ve decided it comes into the wishy washy category of decisiveness in the typical vein of xtract reporting that leaves you scratching your head wondering wtf it actually means. But in the back of your head, you have a feeling it means they will wait until further potential pre concentration routes have been explored and then tested, so those results too can be incorporated into the ‘continuing economic study’ along with further test work results on more high grade samples ‘before’, releasing the updated model and study to the market.

What say someone with letters and 5hit after their name? 😉😆

What needs to be remembered is that all xtract need to do is show there there is a reasonable business case that an aquirer can be confident the project can be progressed further. If it comes from a far smaller operation that doesn’t exploit all of the Cu inventory but is shown to have a better economic outcome as pre -concentration will ultimately offset a degree of those recovery losses with reduced Capital outlay and Operational costs which will have a positive counter effect on NPV.

What was it that you used to preach Steve4077? It’s not about the grades, but what can be economically recovered. It’s basically the same ball park.

How xtract achieve that in the ‘most’ attractive production scenario to show the project is desirable is what is important.

Firstly, I would have expected a positive economic evaluation from the inclusion of the additional ore achieved from phases 1&2 anyway, with the understanding from the interim update/report that ‘warranted’ further optimisation drilling in a next drill schedule with pre-concentration a further avenue. Not because further optimisation drilling was deemed necessary as phases 1&2 come up short! Doesn’t generally work like that, the company knew what they needed to achieve when they closed off.

However, the most important thing now is that the concept of incorporating BOS has been confirmed now to be a success. With decent recoveries and grade upgrades, with an initial estimate of 64% decrease in the material ‘considered’ as waste, which a smaller plant and throughput, would potentially add more scenarios to those existing 16 economic pit shells with greater options toward seeing the all important production scenarios that would include reduced Cap and Op costings as well as seeing how the economics of a larger plant of 20-25 mtpa would come back with the resulting BOS.

The confidence that the current results can now be input into the financial model will hopefully now see that circa 25% IRR figure achieved and a decent NPV.

A point of note is that Tomra are still confident that BOS could be amenable for the higher grade ( that will be the early mined Cap payback phase) with Xtract not feeling it necessary at this stage to wait for those further tests to be returned ‘before’ incorporating into the model.

Will wait for the full study which will show where further optimisation and pre-concentration can improve value and wether there is any need to advance any further before seeing where AA are and what they want to do.

Must admit I have a tier or 4 in my eye!

What the hell are you going on about Steve?

The whole concept is to remove the waste rock from the ore with a 64% reduction of the mass material that then goes for processing.

From Empress update

>>>Since production started in July 2022, ore throughput has grown by 11% per month, grades have averaged 1.6g/t.

Still a little shy of the current open pit average grades of 1.76 g/t which the ramping up reflects the using up of the lower grade stockpiles and ‘initially’ at start up and commissioning, even marginal ore that wasn’t even in the resource statement. Results will increase even further down the line with up to 2.62g/t as and when the other 3 satellites with ‘known’ reserves are bought into play. Still plenty to come from fairbride with extensions and the higher graded deeper sulphides yet though, where will see far greater returns from the joint deal with mmp

Even now the income will still not be at the bottom line.

>>>In essence it means a project that is not economical at current metal prices and requires a quantum shift to make it so. Exactly where Bushranger is on the curve

I said I wouldn’t challenge your opinion Pinocchio, but you have stated where BR is, as a fact. You can certainly argue that fact with only the 71mt conceptual study currently to support your ‘opinion’. But to refer to BR as a dog is unfair without the updated economics after phases 1&2 are included. Or you simply don’t understand why the first study needed to be done to follow up on the AA JORC (71mt)

Otherwise how could you possibly know that BR is uneconomic. Unless you have a spreadsheet?

Hi James

op costs are of course variable, so are always going to be subjective leading up to audited results. They will no doubt be in that range reported though. It would be good to discuss if any reductions in costs could come from wether increasing actual throughput or increasing head grades as the lower grade stockpiles are finishing and are into the decent hard rock.

I can understand a reduction in costs could come from increased efficiency as the operation matures but by just how much will be seen.

Guy

Thanks for your time and effort Ma in giving your forecasts for revenues, of which you have every right to use CB comments to support you figures. Also appreciate the challenges to those AISC figures that are still subjective until confirmed.

The ‘important’ thing is to keep quality dialogue going to continually stir up interest to observers in showcasing the main asset and pointing out the obvious in what makes xtract attractive right now.

Ma is top of the class for that ✅

Pinocchio, re your 4 tier dog comment you believe BR to be.

Im not challenging your opinion, but can I just ask what you are basing it on?

I can’t be Colin Bird, Jeremy Reid and OSV now can I?

OSV could be 1DAYMAYBE now he has left school!

Strap in everyone this is gonna fly 🤣

All in all a well executed and measured exploration programme that increased what they set out to increase and identified further potential to be unlocked by an acquirer.

Why would xtract or ‘any’ junior embark on one single £12m+ costing project without a good degree of certainty of a successful outcome.

The importance of doing that 71mt conceptual study cannot be underestimated, it gave the direction that Xtract were recommended to follow.

Proof of the pudding will be how the updated figures stack up of course, however, there is further scope for optimisation to improve further overall value and IRR. It’s not as though they have run out of options. Far from it!

Consider too why AA have kept an interest in BR with the agreement attached when they passed over the baton to xtract to de risk it further.

We have no way of knowing how much of the resource model there was that AA had ‘identified’ or ever will. This was ‘probably’ uneconomic at the time, I didn’t say it was uneconomic now.

There could have been any number of reasons why AA didn’t carry on. Xtract geologists had learned to understand that the IP and drone mounted EM surveying signatures could be overlayed in a new technique that was suitable with BR mineralogy that helped more accurately target where to drill due to the very subtle differences and being able to compare those differences with the known mineralisation of the original JORC. If AA geos had known years before of this technique things may have been different for them.

Also read theiceberg last blog entry

http://icebergshares.blogspot.com/?m=1

No not at all, cB has been very clever in using the 2mt as a carrot, for all we know there could have been 2mt from the JORC, the non JORC ore and from making assumptions of potential ore from the known correlation between iP signatures and actual grades found at RC to make those assumptions on the lower anomoly that became Ascot. It would have given cb enough confidence to make that statement that we have 2mt. It didn’t suggest they had proved up and JORC’d 2mt

My 2mt from rc was more aimed at what it became defined as once Ascot was identified.

Sorry to confuse.

The lower cut off is mostly due to increased copper price granted, but drilling has achieved a lot.

The increase and conversion to inferred of the known but unreported low grade 0.1-0.2 peripheral grade ore that didn’t make it into the original and was on the outside of the 71mt JORC would not have been economical at that time to warrant converting. With the increase in the price of, and further projected future price those peripheral grades that now have JORC classification as they have been infilled will now be economic to mine once an initial early Cap pay back phase can be shown to be viable from the high grade central part of the resource.

From the ‘21 conceptual study

>>Optimal believe that the economic recovery and processing of ore with low grades between 0.1 - 0.2% Cu is pivotal for the economic viability of the Racecourse project” 


Referring to the known but unreported ore in the resource model that didn’t make it into the JORC at that time.

There was never going to be 2mt at racecourse as xtract would have known from AA’s resource model the expected grades.

Originally 2mt could have been a possibility from RC as one 3+km long open pit ‘before’ it was split down the middle when Ascot was identified and weaker mineralisation separated the two. But didn’t turn out like that once it was drilled.

No roast for two weeks now, have kev and Phil done a bunk on a jolly to Margate with all the money they’ve earned from cB and gang

LW you don’t just simply decide to lower the cut off grade to increase the resource size! A many number of factors go toward impacting the cost of mining and toward the lowest economic recoverable grade. The drilling programmes increased the overall resource by x8 and with a copper inventory of 1.3Mt. No not 2mt but was not likely to be, much of the drilling at racecourse was to convert all or most of the original resource that AA identified that didn’t make it into the original 71mt JORC but was in their resource model and that was included in xtracts conceptual study on the 71mt resource, also drilling was to further identify extensions to the mineralised body and infilling to upgrade part of resource to indicated.

Does CB have a responsibility to ‘all’ shareholders ?

I would say no, not particularly. Certainly not toward the traders, but genuine investors will have ultimately benefitted yes, that believe in the company growth strategy and that have a longer term outlook and are willing to wait for an outcome for BR.

And have had the fortune to have significantly averaged down as part of any sensible investment strategy supported by improving company fundamentals.

Fully appreciate that this is not what most signed up for, but in this climate they had no choice but to go into semi care and maintenance mode that has also had an effect on share price.

Look at it this way, if an investor believed a £50m market cap was good value over a year ago after doing their research and DD then how much more value has been added since the current asset developments now with a £14m MC?