Member Info for howezap

Well that’s easy LW……. We ‘all’ did, with a reduced amount of dilution than what would have likely seen without the intense PR drive dangly carrot etc. The continuation after that was to again to attempt to keep as high a share price, possibly with intent of driving it up toward the outstanding warrants that could have potentially gained a few million.

There were no guarantees after all that fairbride was going to have a trouble free commissioning as we have seen.

But, after all there was just too much of an economic head wind. I think overall that’s a fair reflection in my opinion of what has transpired.

It does appear now to have reduced that risk of further cash calls considerably. It certainly hasn’t been straight forward.

That’s a fair one Lucky, took 5+yrs in the end, half that time may have seen non dilutive exploration funding of BR from the offset. And with no financing overhang to have held the share price back since we would certainly not be sitting at £14m market cap. CB would not have needed to dangle the 2mt carrot and set targets that the after effects of have played some part in the rerate down.

Dani too has a fair point in that he hasn’t had an influence in any way toward the development of new plant and it’s commissioning though.

There are way too many ifs and buts to go drown that road, we could go on all day. It is what it is now, but for sure there would have been a far different outcome you can imagine.

The market is much less forgiving in general of junior mining companies anyway, between 50-100billion as been wiped off AIM company values since the down turn, most or certainly a vast amount of those companies in AIM that have suffered the most losses those do not have earnings or any other type of incomes to underpin their market caps.

Xtract would have likely seen ‘less’ of a rerating if fairbride plant was at full production 18months before it was.


Not denying there has been an element of disappointment in not reaching some ‘targets’ that were set, but cannot recall any deadlines baz. Those missed targets have been while the company still has plenty of optionality to advance in the best and most economic way forward and ‘not’ that it has come up against a brick wall.

>>I don't THINK OSV works weekends !

24-7-365 is no limit for an AI chatbot

This short article pretty much sums up the whole angle that CB has been approaching from in terms of what BR can offer, the projected shortfall by ‘35, the time frames for these large projects from discovery to a producing mine, the importance of a supportive government, increasing environmental issues that pre-concentration can help an acquirer to navigate.

The immediate to medium term increased demand will have to come from the recycling of and the optimisation of existing large mines that are seeing average grades reduce with majors shifting their ‘focus’ away from greenfield projects that are ‘ready now’ to go into development stage as associated costs to build have increased largely. That shift to optimise current mines though does not affect the status quo that BR project will find an acquirer once a strong enough business case can be shown for them to advance it to de risk further.

https://www.australianresourcesandinvestment.com.au/2023/07/14/copper-on-a-knife-edge/

The point I was trying to make was that the JORC is normally updated to understand what to do next geologically. Continuing to drill more before updating the JORC could have been a complete waste of time and money if those proximal targets turned out to be uneconomical to recover as they fell under the eventual cut off grade.

I anticipate those proximal grades to be around the 0.15% in that respect.

JS, your decision to sell some, appears to be based on just your own ideas, and not the facts reported through RNS. Or you simply haven’t interpreted the information correctly.

Xtract had to decide at some point to deliver to Optimal a resource that they believed could work. That is, they closed it off. From then the JORC was updated by measured group, this contains the crucial information for Optimal to complete the updated feasibility study and economic evaluation.

The updated JORC resource for RC has a cut off grade of 0.1%CU that Measured group based on the grade and tonnage curve, higher copper price, the increase in resource from phases 1 and 2 drilling, but it is also based on the ‘21 preliminary study which suggested at that time before any of phase 1&2 data was known, that mining to 0.15%Cu cut off could produce a positive economic return.

So with the economic cut off grade known, Optimal then identify that the proximal targets outside of the pit shell could further improve the economics.

As for huge disappointment, how can you possibly make that statement without seeing the full development options that will include Cap and Op costs to determine NPV/IRR

Reason you give for Manica is weak, choosing what CB said over mining JV agreement details and the DFS as a bottom line. But at least the fact you only sold a portion means you must still have some confidence in the BOD to deliver.

You have been negative for as long as I can remember so hope BR can deliver for you off the back of the income now from Africa. Good luck

Have you considered LW it may well be that 80-100 kg per month will be easily in reach once a new flotation circuit is added. Could CB have been making those predictions based on those figures? Bit sly yes, but he’s a wiley ole fox.

Besides that gold output is only limited to what head grades can be fed into mill and not maximum throughput up to nameplate capacity. So may well achieve that from higher grade stockpiles if they choose to run it through instead of blending with the lower grade ores. But with strict protocols in place it certainly points toward a consistent average grade being supplied to mill.

Really fair point NtM is making, it must now be considered primary with its ability to bring in other assets, cover debt to develop plant extension and progress BR ‘toward’ a PFS.

BR could be a slow burn if AA pass with further drilling maybe done “sequentially, and not all at once” which could mean as funds become available. If that was the message received from last years AGM.

The importance of FB going forward should not be underestimated

Good work ma wish I could contribute further but you seem to have a good grasp.

Actual cash in bank to be confirmed in 6 months or so.

Who upset Andrew?

You know he can be a bit precious!

Sorry A.

Guy

>>Colin Bird is no longer providing his podcasts to help them to understand better.

Don’t mean to be cynical, but it’s not his job to help investors understand. Although he has repeatedly stated it’s far better to, and is of greater value to show a viable mine than chase 2mt.

The drilling objective of 20k metres to delineate 2mt was simply based on crude assumptions that the increased ore body was of the same grades as the higher grade original resource. They had every right to use this as a PR hook as I’m 100% sure the geological team were well aware of the expected peripheral grades in RC. In fact the conceptual study is pretty damning in stating that,

“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”

While the number crunching is ongoing there is nothing more that CB can report or point toward while they still have optionality to progress the project toward that AA option.

OSV >>>Why is it the fault of the board that they didn't understand the steps needed to monetise a resource ?

I fully support this view, it’s not common knowledge amongst most pi’s what steps and hurdles have to be overcome to get a project de risked. These low grade huge tonnage porphyry deposits are no exception, demanding a lot of work by their very nature and size. They don’t come around very often and to see one pop up on one of the UK indices is still rare.

I’m sure the management team would love to maximise Bushranger size if they had a bottomless pit of cash , but the company recognises the value of fast-tracking the deposit to show a decent NPV and an attractive IRR to put in front of AA. They will do whatever is necessary to tweak the NPV model from an abundant resource and through optimisation until a desirable result is achieved which is not uncommon to do. It may or may not require more drilling but they will only do what is very necessary for now.

Whatever folk think of CB and how he has handled the PR, it does not mean that BR has fallen short of company expectations. Far from it, the grades, tonnages, economic cut off grades, metallurgy recoveries, strip ratio tolerances do compare to similar low grade bulk tonnage projects. Although every project has its positives but all are distinctly different. You only have to look at Aitik’s grades in Sweden.

It’s all about what can be economically recovered, and to have it in a safe country that is a mining nation with a supportive government all adds weight behind being a desirable asset.

>> Colin and the board know what needs to be done.

No 5hit Sherlock

I do share that same rationale steve, just picking apart CB’s comments. welcome back btw.

We, or some, or I’m maybe getting tied in knots with what’s actually required to trigger the DtM. As was part the case with the 2mt option in the agreement. I think CB has inadvertently maybe given us a bum steer in some of his podcast comments in how they have been interpreted.

End of day you can only evaluate what’s put in front of you to guide your research in trying to get a grip on what’s in needed to be done going forward.

That’s a good plan lucky for AGM please report back any clarity on the dtm, Stevem does make sense.

>>Didn't iceberg say it is discounted 50%? 


Yes, a buyer will only pay for what is in the JORC and inferred is discounted.

On recollection CB also said that a PFS is not a prerequisite for a sale. But a straight sale is not the immediate objective. The hurdle is to trigger the buy back to get a decision from AA first and foremost.

A PEA or similar assessment could well be then an adequate supporting study that simply means “ we are heading toward financing” and not a genuine attempt to secure it.

The ‘decision to mine’ term in the agreement is ridiculously vague and has clearly had CB in the past uncertain of what it actually means!

Aeris 6 jul >>There is no clear path / stages to go through to enable the Board to take a Decision to Mine,

I agree Aeris, although, they ‘have’ made the DtM and the awaited mining study may well be the supporting study that AA will make a decision on, implied by the big man in the latest podcast. I think what is not so clear are comments he has made previously “that AA will want to see the hard numbers” and that “they want to see we are heading toward financing! “

At the end of the day the mining study once returned will still be low level with its technical and economic assessments still insufficient to support estimation of Ore Reserves or to provide ‘assurance’ of an economic development case.

If a financier uses xtract’s own internal valuation, it will naturally have value aligned to heightened expectations, so they may prefer to have value defined by Valmin that will base it on prevailing market conditions. But without ore reserves I don’t see how a financier will even be able to value it for purpose.

Maybe the goal posts have moved since, or they are giving some of that NPV away to third party funding. Or am clueless twot way off the mark. 🤷

Good morning Jezzo you asked the other day,

> Can anyone see a figure in $ what XTR have received in actual cash ? 
23% of the profit is ??

>>Xtract will be reporting production and gold price statistics for Fair Bride on a quarterly basis with Xtract's 23% net profit share to be included in its annual and interim financial accounts.

Whatever reasons potential/ investors have at this stage that may or may not be causing some reluctance to buy, or current holders that are deciding to rebalance such as JS, could well cause some initial suppression in the share price.

Could be like a coiled spring, the result could be a very volatile share price, which could easily spike again once FOMO kicks in, but this time off the back of genuine price sensitive good news. ( hopefully good 😊)

Likewise lucky should be 0.1%CuEq.

I’m sure he mentioned at some point the moly will not play a part at RC ???

Yes agreed nothing in black and white as yet. No one will be more relieved than me as have championed the £¥?k out of going down that particular path.

The lower grade recovery rates are proving to be just fine. The extra samples needed from the lower grade ore are due to it being more widespread across the resource so more representative examples are required to increase the confidence.

I would stick my neck out and say the concept works, it’s down to how effective those recovery rates will be against the reduction of waste rock.

If I am right in thinking, the updated mining study is looking to be based on the whole of the 512mt racecourse resource that is at open pitiable depths now. Previously CB spoke of a 9 year mine life which would have indicated a mining phase of just the extracting the higher grade 191mt crown in an initial CapEx payback phase. The bulk ore sorting technology should now allow them to exploit the lower abundant grades at or below the 0.1%Cu cut off, which would have a significant effect on the economics.