Member Info for Jamesiecakes

“The Phase 2 Racecourse drilling programme is ongoing and to date 15 diamond drill holes have been completed for over 10,000 metres drilled. Assay results have been received for two drill holes (BRDD-21-007, BRDD-21-008).”

Guess we can expect an update on 20 and 21 shortly then.

Hi Ella And Steve

Just reread the RNS and looks like I was being stupid :-), as you say this is a historic hole.

Cheers

James

Hi Ben

Think I’m being stupid as well as can see grades for hole 7&9 in the diagrams?

Cheers

James

Hi Screenlearner

I’m guessing your not a detective if you are only just starting to suspect that CB is a bit optimistic on timelines!!!

Cheers

James

Hi All

I’ve just registered for the event as well, see you there.

Cheers

James

Hi Sq52

I think the current JORC is 0.44% CU and 0.064 g/t AU so approx 0.48% CU equivalent, no mention of silver in the headline figures I just glanced at.

So on the surface yesterday’s figures where an approx 5-6% increase on what we have currently, I’m far from a geologist but without knowing what had been included in the geological model for the area drill 8 targeted I don’t get how Steve can suggest hole 8 will substantially increase the CU in the existing JORC? I would be delighted to be wrong of course, and quite easily could be.

I read the below quote from CB as hole 8 has proved up our concept and future holes will add the value to what we have

“These results support our plans to design and develop an open pit in the Racecourse porphyry region. These initial results suggest that the crown area has a propensity to carry good grade and will continue to add value to the conceptual open pit. A number of holes in the drill programme are outside the current resource and thus our conceptual pit modelling”

My thought process is that the SP won’t budge much until the market see the value of work being done e.g. an updated model or material income comes online.

Cheers

James

Isn’t it just a case of yesterday’s assay results were from a drill in the existing Resource (my understanding) and the grades were very much inline with existing Grades (0.44% CU and 0.064 g/t AU) so despite being a positive RNS there wasn’t a lot of value that the market could easily add without knowing exactly what the forecast was for the hole (grades / metres etc)

Hi Steve

I agree it’s to early for news on BR, but Africa there is loads of news pending (in my opinion)

Eureka, assay results, open pit mine commencing

Kalengwa, CB has confirmed in podcast that a processing facility is being built but nothing has been confirmed in RNS. So an update on this and possibility first sales seems due to me.

Then in Africa there is GF which surely production must be starting from imminently (this seems news worthy to me) and then any developments with FB with production due to start in Q4 there should be loads of news on its way.

I’m sure I’ve left things off as well

Cheers

James

Hi Dibs

Unless the assays are spectacularly different to what we had back from P1 I can’t see a material appreciation in the SP (happy to be wrong on this), what I think will lead to a meaningful and sustained increase will be an update in the economic results (assuming this is good of course), hopefully we get to a stage where the project flies at a copper price of 3/lb (this is the point I believe majors will get interested but I may be a bit conservative here).

In addition I think there will be a nice tick up once Manica comes online, you can tell from the negative comments on here that most people don’t take the African assets seriously, and it will be hard to ignore $400/500k of positive FCF each month!

Cheers

James

Hi andmillsy

CB has around 14 million shares in total, I’d guess he’s actually averaging up with this purchase.

A funny amount of shares to buy, he normally deals in round numbers (last several purchases)……

Cheers

James

Hi Captainbob

I was expecting a Eureka update today, solely based on the fact there wasn’t an interview yesterday so was thinking maybe CB was waiting to discuss a few things….

I heard him say 500-700k tonnes of copper as well but assumed he meant ore, as this fits in with the the 2/3 mine life at 250k tonnes of ore per year.

Cheers

James

Yes a podcast would be nice, I find it a bit hard to visualise how a near vertical hole could touch both the east and west flanks.

Hopefully CB was reading the BB yesterday and defends the value of the Africa Assets as he defended the Drilling speed in P2 (a few words on FB, Eureka and Kalawenga would be fantastic)

Cheers

James

Hi CE

I disagree that this is all about quantity, if you look at the average grade mined in scenario 10 I think this works out to be 0.25% copper. So if we generate a huge volume of low grade material say 0.2% average the majority of this would be mined at the back end of the project (say 12 years from now, 3 year capex build plus 9 year LOM) so the economic value of this due to discounting will be relatively minimal for example all CF in year 12 would be discounted at .4 (10m undiscounted becomes 4m discounted, still nice to have but you get my point).

Therefore in my opinion what the economics of this project require is richer material (this was also confirmed in the podcast by Jeremy I think) let’s say 0.35% which can then be targeted in the earlier years of the project the additional margin of the higher grade material would significantly improve the economic metrics and attractiveness of the project to any buyer (independent valuer) e.g. NPV/IRR up, payback and BE copper price down.

Cheers

James

Jadu

I think we all realise that the economics are based on current JORC which is likely to increase significantly.

The discussion was whether the current JORC is economic as is, some think it is I disagree due to the price assumptions used (happy to be corrected but copper has never been $5/lb? Not to say it never will be but today the resource being economically viable is contingent on the copper price increasing). Additionally the result are before tax, so the after tax Metrics e.g. npv /irr will obviously be worse and these are the results which count. So guess I can argue or at least question the results being economic.

So for me this report doesn’t add much value to the company as it currently is however neither has it changed the story e.g. we need to prove up the resource size.

Cheers

James

News read the RNS……

Ps the report is in AUD not USD

Would also be interesting to see what contingency was used in the capex and opex cost assumptions.

I’d disagree that the resource as it stands is viable, I struggle to believe anyone would sink AUD 1.5bn of capex (I presume most of this is up front) for a positive pre tax NPV only at $5/lb. for me this analysis shows that the current resource isn’t economic and basically just means we are in the same position as before, waiting for the resource to increase in size. It’s a shame that there wasn’t a sensitivity provided to show how the economics could look if you add say 50% and 100% to the resource size.

Cheers

James

Hi Steveosaurus

Hope this works for you

https://twitter.com/ResourcesXtract

Cheers

James

Some nice pictures of the drill rigs arriving on Twitter, interestingly looks like they are using a different contractor this time. From memory CB was raving about Mitchell (previous drillers) so guess he couldn’t secure them due to demand in the area or maybe a less specialised Rig/crew were required for the phase 2 wells due to depth etc

Hi Andrew

One other upside to consider on the monthly cash flows is capital allowances (depreciation). Shockingly my knowledge of the Mozambique tax system isn’t great…….however assuming it’s similar to tax regimes I now a little better I would expect that the JV could could depreciate the Manica land acquisition ($7m from memory), plant costs ($8m plus at a guess) over a number of years. There might also be some tax losses carried forward which could also be utilised.

I’ve not factored the above into my projections which are aligned with yours (circa £350k per month), as I’ve not read/heard anything on this point from the company but I certainly feel that our tax costs could be lower than the estimated $350/oz over the 7 year mine life.

Cheers

James