Member Info for howmanyfools

I am waiting for net profitability just like most shareholders. Share price is range bound until this happens, open to interpretation. Perhaps we will test 12p in old money before rising then falling back and generally moving sideways. I give Singer and Bonney six months to return to profitability then an explosive share spurt ending in a Tosca-backed sale. It may take 12 - 18 months. Job done.

Note 11 gives projected full year revenue and losses for both Yume and Rad1 which would have resulted in significant losses from both companies despite one of improving losses for RTHM. As an example - Yume losses would be 25.8 million after showing a small profit the previous year. Rad1 losses would be 19.9 million. RTHM loss is 5.1 million. Cost savings in discontinued exceptional items plus synenergies will not be enough to cover these losses. RTHM produced annual organic growth through higher prices of 23%. Putting growth at 23% in 2019 gives 483 million revenue with the prospect of no net profitability and no earnings per share. Disappointing but not unexpected.

Olderandwiser, I forgot to mention that the DFS numbers are very conservative in which Colin has spelt this out and that is good. But one must look beyond the 7 years and Colin in his presentation at the start told us of the 1.2 million oz under the ground. No doubt as time progresses extra oz will be factored into operations. Therefore, whilst Colin has banded a design for 300k capacity mine, the interested party may want this bigger. I think the potential is there for a much longer period than 7 years or at a higher production rate.

Olderand wiser, The 215k is mentioned in Colin's presentation and you are correct if these numbers are used from the DFS. Bear in mind the 295k troy ounces is under the 300k capability of the designed mine, so Colin has illustrated the investment case using these figures to arrive at $4M profit. Regarding alluvial income, what we know is that both Moz and Sino are contracted to produce at 400 tons per hour on a consistent 24 hour basis. Theoretically over 12 months at full steam this gives an enormous number for the alluvials at average grade of 0.5 tons per gram. Strip out allowances for down-time, variable grades and purity of smelted gold and you arrive at an interesting proposition. Also taking account of a year of two halves - two quarters wet season and two quarters dry season. Now if Colin gets on board another Chinese outfit who process in the rain, we can still look forward to three multiples of 400 tons per hour. I did attempt to put some figures together but there are so many variables and we are still early days and need to see the performance in the dry season. I think it will exceed what people are now expecting. We also have the near potential for gold to rise and break through resistance at 1360 to 1550 and onwards above 1800. If gold can break out this week that benefits Colin in his negotiations. What price would the Chinese pay for the whole company - no debt, dry season ramp-up, Omnia processing next door at 1 gram per ton, designed hard rock plant capable of 300k (my 295 troy oz), etc etc. Let us wait and see.

Having now checked thoroughly all RNS and video details etc, in my humble opinion, Colin has not made any fundamental errors in figures released and it is we investors who are making the mistakes and jumping to an array of wrongful conclusions. During the UK Investor presentation, from 2 minutes in, Colin is talking about the design of the project capable of ..."35 oz per year for 7 years" and then retracts saying "that uses about 300,000 oz". He then goes on to explain production targets and the fact that gold price is rising. Note the word million is not mentioned. Colin gets it bang-on with his forecasted $4 m profit at 20% share for FairBride and he worked it out exactly beforehand based on the following calculation where 31.1035 grams = 1 troy ounce; gold price on Saturday 21st April was $1,336.36 per oz less all inclusive cost of $862 per oz to give $474.36 per oz profit. Now the calculation using Colin's quoted figures of 42,000 tons per month at 2.6g per ton, which is equal to 295,000 troy oz over 7 years; and 42,143 troy oz per year at $474.36 oz profit = $19,990,953 profit which is $20 million and 20% is $4 million. I also think XTR net income of $320k for Q4 is bona-fide because Colin says this is total combined contractor income which will include both gold sales and Omnia run of the mine income. In RNS of 6th December, the approximate gross gold sales for October and November was estimated at $230,000 for Xtract and Nexus (Explorator). If you deduct 6% mining tax you get an approximate cost of $216,200 which tallies with the Q4 Explorator attributable gold sales of $218,000. The gold produced during December remained unsold and is included in the figure for Q1. There is a similar proportion of unsold gold carried forward from Q1 into Q2. So I think XTR income for Q4 is $320,000 less costs $101,600 (254 x 0.4) giving a net profit for the quarter of $218,400. Colin clearly wants to focus on GOLD SALES and resultant growth each quarter. He has used Omnia to strip away the muck and we got paid handsomely for this in Q4 as stated above. Bring on the ramp-up in gold production and we are in the money with alluvials.

Extracting the figures, income today was GOLD income and does not incude any debt payments. Also, there does appear to be significant weight of smelted and not sold gold each end quarter, so any additional income from last quarter is tempered by "not sold" gold this quarter.

The rain did not stop Sino from performing very well in Q4. I think the rain is a smokescreen for the poor grades processed this quarter and is one of the reasons Omnia have pulled out. Gold produced was less. Gold price increase provided growth. Is all this interest in hard rock spin from Colin?

Very poor RNS. Lack of detail is worrying. Colin's ability to procure and run an alluvial contract is a total shambles based on Omnia experience and none performance damages sought from Moz. Mr Bird's lack of duty erodes XTR's position to negotiate improved terms with Nexus and other alluvial contractors. Where is the other interest coming from? Not a bean in the RNS and nothing positive to say. Colin must spell out his strategy in a clear and detailed statement and provide monthly production updates.

What is the situation with Xtracts other asset, the Australian Julia Creek and what appears to be a tiny interest in Global Oil Shale Group. How are they linked to this development of one the largest vanadium deposits globally - 2,579 million tonnes with Intermin Resources? This mining prospect is huge in comparison to the Bushveld mine in South Africa, where BMN has seriously re-rated. Has all links been severed and am I barking up the wrong tree. https://www.northweststar.com.au/story/5302104/richmond-vanadium-project-a-globally-significant-find/

Interesting analysis by Lazard from November 2017 puts cost of vanadium flow energy storage on strong terms with lithium ion. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58648612e3df28f032aa8bdd/t/59fb229b71c10b386abf1151/1509630623380/lazard-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-30.pdf

Should add, equally likely to be Redt hybrid battery.

...."2 no. 905m3 firewater storage tanks; an underground 830m3 surface water attenuation tank; an underground 1030m3 firewater retention tank"... This provision for fire suppression systems, hence more likely to be lithium ion.

Up 8.37% today closing at 8.8p. Appears to be LSE computer glitch showing yesterdays closing price.