Member Info for iWantThatOne

Kenj, the fact is, certain institutional investors recently have felt that the company warrants a price of 25p. AVO’s management has clearly persuaded them that it is. Today’s SP doesn’t necessarily reflect the “correct” value of the company. It may not be possible for them to buy the quantity they want on the open market.

The SP has been affected by several persistent sellers. I have no doubt that it will steadily rise once these sellers have been cleared. I do not want or expect management to significantly dilute existing shareholders excessively by offering new shares at much below 25p. Nor do I think they’ll have much trouble finding investors.

So many SP predictions today from the usual gormless people who have no clue. The most likely position is that S-series units are on the cusp and then we’ll get a big update. Meanwhile the amnesiacs who have forgotten that this was a year of further development rather than production continue to bash the company and Bond for “not having doing something”. There’s lots to come in 2023 we should all be looking forward to, so Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all sensible LTH’s.

Looks to be one big seller today - 400k shares sold in four batches of 100k each. The stock is so tightly held that the price drops a lot as soon as anyone sells. I think the mcap now bears no relation to the prospects of the company. They’ve been successful at getting fund raises away at 25p for a while now - let’s hope this continues. I suppose one way of looking at it is that if fund raises have to be at a lower price then that’s quite attractive to a funder who has no doubts about the company, so perversely might make make it easier to raise capital.

I don’t know about sovereigns but I am also hanging on here for what must be a strong turnaround in H1. If they do manage to pour the 26k+ ozs at sub-$1400 AISC in Q4 that they promised then that’s approx $10m+, which would be comforting. It’d also be good to get confirmation that the outstanding $20m loan from Coris has been granted on acceptable terms. I guess near the end of January things will become a lot clearer...

CGH, maybe I’m naive but my view is that this company has got sufficiently close to commercialisation to be able to raise the funds it needs. It’s not as though it needs to get through a massive round of funding, which has often been the point at which other tech companies fail - small, regular raises as the tech continues to be derisked would suffice (though not my favourite way of doing it). And there are several large existing investors who will want to see a good return on their money.

Some chunky trades gone through today, buys at c£13k, £15k, probably a buy for £19k and one that could be either a buy or a sale for £39k for exactly 15.00p. Maybe the sp was brought down to fulfill the big one if it was a purchase. Anyway, hopefully on the up soon.

There seems to be a persistent seller of 5,000 shares each this morning and we know the sp moves even on small trades. Good, then, to see someone buying 87,000 just earlier. I haven’t been paying close attention to trades in the last few weeks but perhaps it’s just one large holder exiting.

As I’ve said before, I don’t see how the company can get anywhere with manufacturing until they know the precise details of what they need to be made. And they can’t do that while they’re “optimising” the components. I agree that a major fundraise might draw a line under this falling SP - another £20m at 25p would see us through another year, to regulatory approval and first patient treatment.

Er, no it isn’t Punter. Meeting guidance is not price sensitive info! What company would say “we know we’ve been crap so far, so here’s an RNS to let you know that we’re not crap this quarter!”?

I’m getting mightily fed up with this share price. Was there any discussion at the recent investor days about regulatory approval progress? I expect that is one of the barriers holding back commitments from potential purchasers. Re manufacturing, I guess it’s difficult to organise RFPs from potential manufacturers while the components are all being optimised, so I can understand the silence there. Anything else we might hear about?

In case anyone needs a reminder, this is what was said in the July 2021 conceptual open pit modelling RNS:

"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 ........Overall, Optimal believe that taking account of the project's large size and relatively low grade, conditions should support the efficient and productive mining of the deposit. Optimisation of the processing plant capacity, capital cost, metallurgical recoveries and operating cost will improve the economic viability......"

So the company and their advisors were always aware of the drivers of viability and already had thoughts 18m ago about where they'd look to try to achieve this.

Interesting comment from Colin in the Roast podcast: “I’m sure there’s 2Mt there if it were fully drilled out” (or words to that effect).

I'm not well disposed to debating with you but I'll just point out that you're wrong. The original 71Mt JORC'd resource was a net (after recoveries) 410kt of copper plus 229k ozs of gold - read Scenario 10 in the July 2021 RNS. That equates to about 450kt of "copper-equivalent" using the appropriate metal prices. The recent RNS described 191Mt at 0.33%, which is 0.63Mt before recoveries, or 544kt after. That's an increase of c0.1Mt of copper (equivalent) with a sale value of >$1.0bn.

Steve - without having see the detail of your workings I can't be absolutely sure, but your analysis is probably flawed in a number of respects. For one, there clearly is additional higher grade copper-equivalent in a near-surface area, even if only a little over 0.1Mt. The strip ratio also reduces significantly when considering the whole resource (and to indicate this, just try calculating the volume of a pit, or equivalent cone/hemisphere of the expected size). Third, unit production costs do reduce as the mill size increases, which is pertinent to CB's comment about increasing the mill size to 25Mt pa. So opex clearly does change in a positive way. Fourth, FX rates have changed since July 2021 and - if part of this change can be considered permanent - will have a meaningful positive impact on the financials. Fifth, you don't know what work has been done by XTR and their advisors on the basic model assumptions used in July 2021 - from memory they were based on assumptions used by Boda (a CB reference), and I'd be surprised if they haven't been refined by then. There is much optimisation that can be done. And even if the low grade material is not particularly valuable, the higher margin crown does generate a positive NPV on certain conditions that are entirely consistent with long-term trends - and which would be enhanced by something similar at Ascot (or indeed other outcrops that have been identified by the XTR team). There are so many reasons why your analysis should not have been presented on this forum as an "accurate" summary of the status quo.

I also feel tempted to say - what on earth were you thinking? What were you hoping to achieve? Were you trying to be helpful? Do you feel you've been helpful? You've single handedly caused a disorderly market by spooking many investors here who may not be as numerate as you and are now worried and thinking is he right? Is he wrong? Well he's a Director of Analytics, maybe he is right. There are probably many here who have been thinking through the implications of the RNS, their own response to it and what they should do, and maybe now feel even more confused than before. But you're alright aren't you, you sold out before your "helpful intervention". You've just dropped a bomb in the room and walked away. Well done.

The line that BR could be uneconomic is a false one that needs to be put to bed. The question is really “at what price of copper does BR become economic?”. We know from earlier modelling that RC pays back the initial capex and produces >$200m NPV at $5/lb. That was based on the original JORC’d resource. We now know that the high grade crown contains more copper-equivalent material than that, at least another 0.1Mt worth >$1bn revenue - again at $5/lb. That’s before you consider the remaining low grade 0.5Mt that would be mined from year 11 onwards. So, very clearly, BR will produce a positive NPV at $5/lb - possibly a very attractive one. The question is then, what about at lower prices? And will the economics be sufficient to attract a buyer?

So as it stands, with a $30m potential equity raise to fund the plant build with the rest being debt, Lionhead will then have control of the company. That doesn’t sound good for us retail investors. Thoughts?

That doesn’t mean that CORA’s DFS is rubbish, Bushy - just that HUM is ludicrously undervalued due to fears of failure, lack of cash and awful management. CORA’s figures are really based on a 1-2m oz mine even though only one quarter of that has been declared.

Rubbish, Bitcoinbuyer. It is not “all about the grades” - never has been. And nor is it “blatantly obvious” that grades are uneconomical. Inflation is due to fall very significantly in 2024. Copper is under-priced based on likely future demand. There has been an overreaction to the news today.

A little short on my expectations of 1.2Mt+ but still - we have a very sizeable resource which Ascot will add to and which - it seems clear - will both be mined together. Hoping now for Ascot to be a meaningful addition. The real biggie will be the financial model, when we’ll get a decent idea of what a sale price could be.

Look at Caravel Minerals again, which we’ve often used as a benchmark here. Mcap AUS$92m, or about £50m. 5p in XTR terms, fully diluted. That’s for what - 1.4Mt Cu and $1.0bn NPV? So perhaps XTR would move to 5p plus 1-3p for African assets if similar figures were declared? Less any discount for a “CB factor”. As others have said, we just need a formal resource statement and value placed on it to get the next leg up.