Member Info for iWantThatOne

Are we expecting a two year warranty to be given on the electrodes currently being tested at Stade - even though the 4 year ones are in development and needed to meet cost targets? (arguably). Or will De Nora only be asked to certify the 4 year ones?

“Super-excited about Prizmacap and related products” he said. At least that’s something. Two months coming in which we also expect to hear about the Spire order and a new licensee.

O&W, you have made an argument that alluvials should only be valued on a PE of 2-3, but then applied that to the 7 year FB HR income too - that doesn't make sense. Taking your �2m HR income x 7 gives �14m. Alternatively, taking 20% of the value of the gold at FB, 20% * $84m = $17.8m - similar result. Add alluvials and non-DFS'd hard rock and the mcap should be well north of �14m. In my view, ultimately �20-35m, but lots remains to be proved over several years. Underground gold value (if any) on top but not recognised for a good few years yet.

I really don’t buy this argument that Dugbe will only happen if the price of gold rises sharply. The fact is that the AISC there are well overstated due to options around renewable energy that would dramatically reduce costs and improve NPV. Having said that, it’s s big project and I’m heartened to hear strategic options are being worked up, possibly including JV. Arguably, the thing that will increase HUM’s value the most in the next 24m is not Mali (important though all those things are) but cementing a way forward on $180m (more like $250m+) Dugbe. IMHO.

I assume there’s a big allowance in CE’s mcap estimate for FB underground gold?Some serious potential upside there though I’d be surprised if the market gives any credit until a DFS and funding are all sorted - at least 4 years away?

Sorry, got my calcs wrong, if its 35kg per month "coming into the company" then we're 12x short.

Capablanca, I thought her said min 25kg "coming into the company", which I took to mean Explorator. If so then - at a target of 35kg - we're a factor of 4 short, as Explorator's share was 9.23kg in Q1. That seems eminently do-able, with Moz getting their act together and both them and Sino doubling production from Q1 levels after the rains.

I'm sure this is a stupid question but, as I've said before, FB 50/50 with e.g. Omnia using an (their) existing plant would seem preferable to 20/80 with a new Chinese contractor to me. Is it possible to flip the non-DFS'd arrangement with Omnia so that it's the FB rock that's put through their nice shiny plant instead of the non-DFS'd rock? The plant is capable of handling about the right tonnage (30-35k ozs p.a.). Or are there technicalities I don't understand? Again this would be a low-risk option with no dilution - possibly a very small amount of capex (that could be funded by debt), to add a few bits to their plant. Compared to the Chinese option we'd immediately gain 30% of the NPV (an additional $12-13m). The non-DFS'd rock would stay in the ground for now.

Andrew, pretty much agree. I had a slightly higher figure, based on some of the alluvial costs being fixed rather than variable, so Q1's alluvial income of $133k might go to $400k but the cost would only go from $100k to $200k (say). Hence net alluvial income a bit higher than yours. Also the non-DFS gold higher, purely based on the tonnage that Omnia's plant can handle. Anyway, a low risk mcap of �25-35m, say, isn't at all bad, especially when you consider the FB underground potential and the earnings-accretive investments that can be made with the annual cashflow (Zim. etc.).

Thanks StockLife, good to see the video and verify the summary CaveatEmptor gave recently. Well it confirms what's been said about FB - low risk approach, no capex, job it all out. The FB HR project alone on that basis is worth approx twice the current mcap. One risk is that we get knocked down closer to 15% royalties rather than 20%.

Yep. Awful isn’t it? 1279 ozs in Q4 x $1000 ( I also can’t explain why not a higher gold price) = 1.279m x 68.5% = 876k contractor income. Close enough. Explorators income is 19% so about 250k, and XTRs share is 40% of that so about 100k. Again, all close enough and ties in with yesterday’s RNS. No mistakes. Fact is, the Jan one misled us and performance - for a host of reasons - has been awful.

Capital, without going through your figures I agree with your thrust - throughput and grades both appear to be well down. I’d welcome a more detailed assessment of this from CB. It doesn’t square with all the plant and excavators etc we were told were on the concession, and it doesn’t square with the good days (“some very good days - 3kg”) that Sino were reported as having. I don’t want to keep bashing this as I still own the stock and support the company - and accept the rains problem. But really, this info needs to be clarified and the comms vastly improved.

Capital, I think 801k is indeed what the contractors earned for Q4 - it’s brosdly in line with the value of the gold sold x 68.5%, which is the deal with Sino. However that’s completely irrelevant to XTR shareholders, we wanted to know what our share is (ie the value of the 19% paid to Explorator and then the residual 40% of that to XTR after paying Nexus). To link XTR’s income to the contractor income and say it’s 40% of that is absolute bull. Read the wording carefully, I don’t think it actually says XTRs net income is 320k but a cynical person would say its been written to give that impression. What was missing from that Jam RNS was the Explorator income and the net XTR income. So as useful as a chocolate teapot.

Having slept on it, I am still taking comfort in the HR options - at least $17m (20%) of FB with no capex, plus potentially at least several $m per year from the other HR with Omnia (assuming that's all still on - there seem to be few qualms about breaking contracts in this neck of the woods). The alluvials now appear unlikely to be a great money spinner, however they are at least removing the dirt, washing their face and have the potential to generate perhaps several $m per year, especially when you consider the western alluvials aren't really being worked at all yet and that Sino should at least double production from here. So all in all, fair value is still well north of here - at least 6p in my mind and potentially quite a bit more. A clear hold and top-up. (On the negative side, Sino didn't increase production, we just sold more of the gold; and (whilst I'm no lawyer) I now consider the 25 Jan RNS to be close to fraudulent misrepresentation).

Andrew, a figure of 320k wasn’t unreasonable was it, because we’d been told Sino would generate 160k per month? Easy to see how rubbish wording took in many of us. I still believe 160k pm from Sino (and Moz, and Omnia Mk2) should be possible but there’s a long way to go.

But StockLife, did you expect 400k for XTR net after paying Nexus, or before? And it’s not even close - XTR’s net income after paying Nexus is only 133k.

Andrew, that’s what threw me earlier and the answer, I think, is that the figure of $320k quoted in respect of Q4, back in January was completely meaningless. It equals 40% of what the contractors earned (801k) - but that in no way represents the income that XTR earned. XTR earned 40% of what Explorator earned. The contractors received 75% gross of gold sold (69% net), whilst Explorator earned 25% gross, 19% net. Hence XTR certainly did not earn 320k for Q4, as is now clear. Perhaps others understood this properly but I didn’t, thrown by that comment about 40% of the contractor’s income.

Sorry folks, misunderstood a few things earlier when I posted about today's RNS. The fact is that Sino (assuming Moz contributed next to nothing to Q1 figures) is only producing about 25% of the income expected when the contract was agreed in July 2017 ($160k p.m. to XTR). The RNS implies grades haven't been as high as expected on average. In addition, throughput appears to have been extremely low (0.5g/t for 90 days to produce 1200 ozs implies 35 t/hr, which is way lower than the 200 t/hr expected even before ramp-up). It seems there are some fundamental issues to be resolved, even allowing for the rain.

It's confusing, Weapon. The costs are quoted identically in both RNS's, so no issue there. But they do seem to have quoted two different Explorator incomes - first 801k then 218k. The only way I can make 218k make any sense is if today they've quoted XTR's profit for Q4 instead of Explorator's income. If that's the case then the logical conclusion is that Explorator income for Q1 was $1.1m, XTR's income was $440k and XTR's orofit was $333k. Unless the 25 Jan RNS was completely wrong.

Am I missing something? The table in the latest RNS does not tie up with the Q4 RNS dated 25 Jan. Today's RNS says that Explorator Income for Q4 was $218k, but on 25 Jan we were told it was $801k. In fact, $218k is actually what the net profit was for XTR (320k-101k costs). Take a look. Perhaps the 25 Jan figures for Q4 have been updated and corrected (downwards!), but it looks to me like today's RNS may be a balls-up.