Member Info for howezap

think *****ain was freelance?

the project would still be managed, would assume jeremy reid is still in the position.

At least let’s wait and see where BR sits first. Remember it’s an experienced geo management team that have been pulling the strings in oz.

In all honesty, I was expecting another raise to see the last push at BR toward the AA option. To have announced they will not need one, pending results from production continually operating within its expected parameters I guess, so whilst it’s frustrating having to wait for results of ore sorting and other pre-concentration options. It can only help to allow time for more income to be banked.

It may point toward the thinking that the 5.6p and 8p warrants that are still active until end of October, the target prices are not ‘too far’ out of reach if a PR drive is planned with pre-concentration study, updated conceptual study with Q1&2 bankable cash. That’s a decent array of news.

Kakuyu is looking to be seeing a methodical process to show its feasibility, are clearly not just diving in.

But ultimately a progressive stream of new projects that fit the ‘description’ in their strategy for growth, are necessary for diversification, the future longevity and continual growth of the business.

Safeguarding the future of the business should always come first and foremost wether Colin bird is at the helm or not.

Hey joey

Xtract will not be intending to mine as you have said. The ‘decision to mine’ is just a term used in the buyback agreement along side 2mtCuEq as targets that Xtract are working toward.

One is just target size, the other, now the preferred option is to show an economically viable mining model at PFS level.

One or other will trigger the buy back mechanism, a pre determined process that a value of asset will be reached if AA decide to take up their option to buy back in. Or subsequently not decide to, where xtract will be free of the legally binding agreement and can offer the project to the global market.

With the desired outcome being a 100% asset sale regardless.

The company have announced that they ‘don’t’ foresee a fundraise in the next twelve months to advance the current projects.

Can tolerate the cheeky cross ramping out you taking the p155 now and of course your opinions regarding Colin Bird are just that, but please dont spread misinformation on a company you clearly don’t know much about now.

You are now coming across as rather intolerable to put it mildly.

Matt

Operating costs across year 21 and 22 included £1.47m in ‘21 and £0.25m in ‘22, for those share options granted to employees and consultants. Also included were the costs impaired for Kalengwa @ £.32m in ‘21 and £.98m from eureka in ‘22.

‘23 should see an improved balance sheet with Q1 audited results to follow shortly and within next 6 months the full updated conceptual feasibility study at BR.

The real positive pointed out by Andrew is they announced they don’t see the need of further placement to advance current projects.

Then the capital costs can be reworked

Are just reiterating what was reported in the interim report, those 16 pit shell scenarios will then show as 16 development options once all other inputs from the resource optimisation are known.

Was that a repost from nov last year joey 🐗

Thought it was Groundhog Day

Keep up.

Hey flipper, the question is not even one of a geological nature. Until terms are met, AA don’t and won’t need to do anything, even if they were desperate to get a foot hold in the region. The project won’t be going anywhere while the onus and risks will be on Xtract to de risk and show it can be a viable mine.

Are any of you Dani Bashers brave enough to attend the AGM after some of the cruel comments you have made?

When you rock up the the hotel, Dani is gonna breccia arms!

Options will lapse five years after the date of the award, being 24 July 2026.

Soz ma not on TG. Can’t recall staff incentivised warrants but I’m sure they have not yet expired. ‘25 rings a bell tho ( not checked)

Hi Backtotgesoil I’m just trying to show why there is plenty to be optimistic about and try to dispel the whole idea that cb is a complete bull hitter. The project is not in a dire situation I firmly believe.

Who haven’t seen the mining study and up to date production figures yet to determine any assessment of credibility. So just what exactly are they basing that assessment on? I think it’s unbelievable there are still many that don’t know what they have bought into.

I’m taking this from a geological perspective.

Here’s a thought.

The historical EM survey showed the early potential that RC had a strike length of circa 3k and CB’s enthusiasm of a T1 mine with 2mt was certainly feasible on that basis. Those early enthusiastic statements at ‘21 AGM and shareholder presentation were based on those early surveys. And could well have been the case. It wasn’t until a bit later in Dec ‘21 when the lower blob was identified as a separate porphyry and the S/SE of RC defined with weak mineralisation between the two.

Realistically if RC and Ascot were all fully delineated, adding to current estimated resource then there is good chance there is over 2mtCuEq anyway, the very same 2mt first hinted at.

As has been said, is far better value to show a viable mine, that will pay back capital first, to then open up the lower grades to be more economically extracted with only Op costs and any ongoing capital to ramp up. Rather, than to continue with further exploration to keep adding to the resource.

Remember those comments that BR will be “a starter project for a buyer to take on” There are some already identified areas of interest and will be further untapped resource that Xtract will not get anywhere near fully revealing. So no, at this stage of the resource evolution it will not be considered a T1 or anywhere near it, but could well go onto be a huge long life mine. One step at a time.

CB’s statements were then and probably are credible, it’s just the work that goes into showing a viable project on the scale of BR that he hasn’t been as up front about.

Through Steve’s time he was invested, he regularly responded with L2 data to show how the share price drops were not a reflection of major sell offs or attributed to any evidence of a major swing in sentiment. He was ‘never’ contested on his assessments. Xtract shares without any doubt are traded automatically using algorithmic trading designed to take the emotion out of the process to continually create liquidity. So with minimum selling pressure over buys as we have continually seen and been shown is the case the bid and ask have continually come down.

Yes the driving factor is ultimately supply and demand but the overall drop should not be used to determine that current market cap is absurdly low. We are blinded by the fact that the share price was once at an unrealistic high from the first huge spike as Joe Public and his wife jumped in. ( No offence as I was one of them) placing a market cap of around £60m!! at 7p. Can anyone now honestly say, that ‘was’ a true reflection of asset value back then. No fairbride plant, no resource updates.

I’m not doubting the effect CB has had with his strategy, but there are other contributing factors including the £50B-100B that has been wiped off the value of AIM since Covid.

But let’s not write BR, Kakuyu and fairbride full production levels off just yet. Patience is all we have.

Ooh really good question, definitely one for discussion.

Think Colin has managed to drag many along, some kicking and screaming there is no doubt. The forward funding requirements of BR have played a pivotal roll in his previous rhetoric and that financing overhang has been the head wind. The world falling into a financial 5hit storm and Putins antics have been the biggest influence though.

With £4m shortfall (so far) from missing out on the warrants. Could expect a further raise to take their place to get BR to PFS so will need a succession of good news in a new PR drive to minimise dilution.

There is a bigger picture at play that ultimately benefits all share holders, particularly more so the holders with low averages that took those earlier risks before the first hole was drilled.

I’m pressed today for time now unfortunately, as would love to play more bat and ball.

Hey Lw

Depends on the level of profitability that would determine how desirable it is for it to compare with other similar projects at the same stage. So I would hope it to show economic viability. But should the question be, does it need to be viable at todays price? Conceptual is just the next level that will direct where NPV can be improved on after all.

Ultimately I guess It would need to show now that the project is a viable one, to warrant further investment in improving on that economic potential. But projects can end up having a number of studies ‘until’ a desirable economic model at pre feasibility is achieved for ‘them’ to justify going onto full feasibility.

How is value calculated on a resource with so little drilling? 


Again referring back to ice comments, that majors only pay for what has JORC with inferred parts of the resource discounted by 50%.

Can’t substantiate if this is a generalised discount, or differs with different mineralisation type. That is that disseminated mineralisation seen with BR is not as predictable as veined or breccias for example.

Allo Ma

Would be unlikely they would drill out Ascot now just to chase 2mt. Better to concentrate on RC open pit with a viable mining study to trigger the AA option.

Luckily BR does have Ascot tho. If RC early payback phase cannot be shown to be desirable enough, for a major to take it on then Ascot could well prove to be the preferred option for the early payback phase.

Ice commented on this scenario

BR project does have that optionality.

>1 billion tonnes with potential of circa 1.6MT CuEq

That also doesn’t include any further resource increase of Ascot until such case as if , or when required or desired for the additional ore.