The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Probably for the best CE, cross bb chat's can get messy...
Yeah it's been going well cheers, I'm trying to build a reasonable position here around current prices as it looks like it has the potential to be a strong contender over the coming months - with even a possibility of a quick move north should the right news land.
I'm looking forward to the Star Zinc project update for clarity on the situation but I'm pretty comfortable letting CB do his thing and I trust that what needs to happen is happening behind the scenes - just looking for that little red dot.
Still trying to work out what level of exposure I'm after here, probably won't be to quite the same magnitude of our other one but I'm certainly keen to take a decent slice of the pie after how well CB has treated me recently...
On another note, the new deal with Sandfire certainly seems interesting, eh?
Certainly a confidence booster in my book and anything under the price they got looks pretty good to me.
Yeah, I've read through the thread and I've gotta be honest, still struggling to work it out.
My thoughts, simplified and summarised are that GLR don't need to transfer the licence as a result of the (imo incredibly convoluted) deal structure and own the rights to 95% of the project via their subsidiary with the other 5% sitting in the hands of the Gov.
Does that sound about right or am I off the mark?
Can I pick the brains of some of the LTH's here...?
I've been trying to work out the state of play here re a few of the different projects and noted this RE Star zinc in the half year report:
"· Galileo agreed an arrangement ("Arrangement") with BMR to assume the rights to BMR's Mauritian subsidiary, Enviro Mining Limited and its wholly-owned Zambian subsidiaries, which include, amongst other things the title to the licences for Star Zinc and Ka****u (zinc willemite) Projects. The Arrangement, which is subject to Zambian Ministry approval, is for nil consideration since the Company has earned-in its 95% right to the two projects. Galileo has decided to cease seeking Ministry approval and therefore will no longer be assuming the rights from BMR."
Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/GLR/half-year-report-53zurqww9ao0ufe.html
Can anyone shed any light on what this means? I have a view on this but may be wayyyy off the mark.
Thoughts/reference links to back up posts appreciated as I'm struggling to work out what's going on...
“The close association of pyrrhotite with the chalcopyrite copper mineralisation, suggest the Racecourse Mineral Resource is a reduced copper-gold porphyry deposit, in contrast to the oxidised porphyry copper-gold deposits, which are more common throughout the Lachlan Fold Belt in New South Wales. Reduced copper-gold porphyry deposits are known to have a higher proportion of gold in comparison to copper.”
Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/geochemical-update-on-bushranger-project-urg5n9bt5k8o95d.html
“The close association of pyrrhotite with the chalcopyrite copper mineralisation, suggest the Racecourse Mineral Resource is a reduced copper-gold porphyry deposit, in contrast to the oxidised porphyry copper-gold deposits, which are more common throughout the Lachlan Fold Belt in New South Wales. Reduced copper-gold porphyry deposits are known to have a higher proportion of gold in comparison to copper.”
Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/geochemical-update-on-bushranger-project-urg5n9bt5k8o95d.html
The 'mind games' are a transparent attempt at knocking the share price, that coupled with said posters lack of understanding of the various projects XTR has equate to a poster I don't believe anyone could possibly take seriously.
However yes, I agree that it's seriously over the top, posting nothing of substance, flooding the bb with irrelevant posts and coming across as desperate to be heard as an incessantly screaming toddler is quite frankly pretty embarrassing.
At risk of spam posting these XRF results (though I do feel like they are an incredibly important piece of the puzzle)..
CB isn't concerned about the grades because previous drill campaigns showed they were decent ( https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/7650I_1-2020-12-15.pdf ), grades were theorised to increase with depth, which they did... it's deeper than we imagined and the XRF's initial indications are that we've got some decent grade material based on the scale of mineralised intersect:
o 40m @ 0.3% Cu from 110m using a 0.2% Cu cut-off
o 148m @ 0.3% Cu from 171m using a 0.2% Cu cut-off
§ Including 30m @ 0.6% Cu from 235m using a 0.3% Cu cut-off
o 287m @ 0.3% Cu from 474m using a 0.2% Cu cut-off
§ Including: 30m @ 0.4% Cu from 517m using a 0.3% Cu cut-off
§ and: 23m @ 0.5% Cu from 628m using a 0.3% Cu cut-off
§ and: 39m @ 0.5% Cu from 722m using a 0.3% Cu cut-off
Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/geochemical-update-on-bushranger-project-urg5n9bt5k8o95d.html
Worth noting that gold hasn't even been determined yet as that will be assessed via assays, again though, some notable intersects regarding gold grades can be seen through previous drill ( https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/7650I_1-2020-12-15.pdf ):
BRD001: 159m @ 0.4% Cu & 0.21g/t Au from 147m including 16m @ 0.5% Cu & 0.73g/t Au
BRD009: 169m @0.4% Cu & 0.09g/t Au from 317m including 68m @ 0.5% Cu & 0.15g/t Au from 348m
Nb. CB's comments about the relationship between copper grades/gold grades through his interviews may very well tell you why he's 'not concerned'.
Agreed cyberiachas - it's all about the scale and valuations differ depending on this.
I'd suggest what we already looks good to be commercial but that is of course my own opinion pieced together from RNS's, XRF's & previous drill campaigns. Happy to wait on the assays before I get too excited.
I feel like you're not picking up what I'm putting down.
The metal value in the ground in no way related to the price we paid for it, this is because it's not a straightforward deal structure of money for asset. It is not a "valuation of £1.25m", i.e. "here's £1.25m cash now walk away" - because it was paid in shares which intrinsically can change in value based on market valuations.
By accepting XTR shares in lieu of cash they are effectively happy exposing themselves to the upsides of bushranger (plus being able to sit back whilst someone else funds the development / makes the sale etc.) alongside also having exposure to all of XTR's other projects.
In the same way I was buying XTR between 0.6-2pps knowing that I would be able to sell those shares for significantly more down the road. The market didn't value XTR higher at the time, I did.
That doesn't mean all of XTR's projects were only worth £5-10m last year and suddenly now they're worth £40m (even though I understand that's exactly what it was "Valued" at at the time, i.e SP x total shares in issue and subsequently is now valued at) - different entities assign different value based on their own view is what I'm trying to say.
Exactly the same thing applies in terms of the asset sale.