Member Info for JDAU

Carpel21, the timing of you turning up and posting... that... as if to prove my point that there is a collective group of posters trying to trash sentiment by posting emotive rubbish instead of anything verifiable or of substance is actual comedy gold.

I'd say you couldn't write it, but turns out that's exactly what you've done.

"You just keep posting waffle and I'll just carry on giving all the potentially new investors the real deal."

Ok, I will carry on posting verifiable information, links and RNS exerts that pertain to active discussions going on on this bb and you carry on giving potentially new investors "the real deal" on XTR according to Jezzoo. Maybe you should write a blog on it, you're trying hard enough to ram your agenda down the throat of anyone who reads these bb's anyway, you might as well try to get paid for it... eh?

Much the same as the last time we had a run in Jez, our respective posting history does the talking.

Good posting howezap.

Sorry to hear you’re the only XTR shareholder who’s supportive of CB. It must be hard.

Apparently everyone else disagrees with you and this company is bad. Just don’t read the RNS’s, you don’t need to, these guys have got all of your XTR information needs covered.

Charles Archer must have got all of his information from somewhere other than company communications / RNS’s, assuming all of these anonymous posters are correct. Maybe he was doing his own drilling?

Considering most of the posters here almost definitely don’t have an ulterior agenda, it seems strange that you wouldn’t just believe them about how bad this company is and sell your entire holding allowing them a cheaper buy in. What are you holding on for?

They are definitely not traders who pump or bash when it suits them. You can tell this because they barely ever resort to emotive statements like stating “SP has flat lined” or “This smells fishy !!”.

Everyone seemed very happy about XTR a couple of days ago when the SP was rising, but now, someone must know something and the company is probably about to collapse… this is why you can’t trust those pesky RNS’s and should just listen to the group here, they seem to know what’s going on.

Not sure about you but I’d much prefer for someone to describe a company to me instead of having to look at any of the facts or read those boring RNS’s myself. I only ever put thousands of pounds into investments when posters like this tell me it’s going to the moon - pro tip: when loads of new posters on a bb suddenly turn up out of nowhere and start to dominate the board, you should listen to them as they are definitely 100% honest.

You can especially tell they are all legitimate holders instead of nameless, faceless, anonymous chat site alias’s that are definitely not multiple accounts because they rarely ever gang up & try to shout down some of the obvious legitimate holders.

Hope you’re well anyway.

Https://thatstocksguy.substack.com/p/xtract-resources-349?r=28f0br&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true

I was trying to be diplomatic with a view of not starting an argument but since it seems your intent on being argumentative and patronising - as though the problem is my ability to read and not your inability to construct a verifiable and accurate post.

For starters, just so we’re on the same page: you’re ok to post whatever you want regardless of accuracy, because it’s your opinion, but I’m the bad guy “throwing a hissy fit” for posting a factual, verifiable quote from an RNS that shows that you’re talking absolute rubbish?

Ok….

“That’s not what I said” doesn’t work when it is in fact exactly what you said.

You stated, verbatim: “the agreement prevents CB selling Bushranger on for anything like what shareholders would consider a good price.”

I stand by what I said, no, it doesn’t, you are wrong.

I appreciate what you are saying (NOW, after being called out for it) that the agreement might limit how much we could sell for - for instance that it would get in the way an open market bidding war - but it doesn’t prevent a sale at a good price which is what you were pitching.

I don’t think I’m being unreasonable to state that (in my opinion) a good price is a fair price and vice-versa.

I do think you’re being unreasonable to state that the agreement prevents us selling the project at a price shareholders would be happy with.

All I’m asking in this instance is for you to not incorrectly represent terms of a contract - and whilst I appreciate you may not believe you were doing that, I believe, as explained above, that is exactly what you did.

“Anglo American still effectively control Bushranger via the agreement they hold over XTR. Unless I missed something, the agreement prevents CB selling Bushranger on for anything like what shareholders would consider a good price.”

No, they don’t “control bushranger”, they have a buy back option which is effectively a right of first refusal at ‘fair market value’. I’m also not sure what you even mean when you state it prevents CB selling at what shareholders would consider a good price??

Unless you’d care to elaborate they seem like some heavily emotive statements that play a little fast and loose with the facts…

The buy-back option is pretty clear and based on either 2Mt of contained Cu equivalent being found or a decision to mine:

“Anglo Buy-back option

Under the terms the Bushranger Acquisition agreement, if a deposit of greater than 2 million tons of contained Cu equivalent (e.g. 450Mt @ 0.45% Cu equivalent) is ultimately identified, Anglo may buy-back 80% of the Racecourse deposit at fair market value as determined by an Independent Expert in accordance with the JORC and Valmin Code. Anglo and ProspectOre would then provide funding pro-rata to their interests, save that ProspectOre may decide not to provide its share of funding and be diluted, ultimately retaining a 0.75% net smelter royalty (NSR). If a "Decision to Mine" is taken by ProspectOre prior to the identification of 2 million tons of contained Cu equivalent, Anglo also have an opportunity to exercise the buy-back. Anglo have a once-only opportunity to exercise the 80% buy-back whether the opportunity comes through the discovery of 2 million tons of contained Cu equivalent or a decision to mine.

If Anglo does not exercise the buy-back and ProspectOre ultimately develops a mine, ProspectOre would hold a 100% project interest, less 3.5% in NSR royalties and a A$7.5 million development payment to historic holders (which includes Anglo).”

Reference: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/bushranger-copper-gold-project-australia-o7u71uhdwbdy9b9.html

Not wishing to be argumentative but can you please not inaccurately represent terms of a contract that are already in the public domain for all to see.

“I don't see JDAU's views as being worth listening to. Attacking us for not understanding is not the way to conduct sensible discussion.”

I haven’t posted anything since early November, not sure why I’m being brought into this discussion or why you’re throwing me under the bus.

Sure seems like I’m being discredited and ironically attacked without good reason and yet you’re trying to paint me as the bad guy for doing just that?! - not the first time this has happened either.

People can think whatever they want about me but attempting to (once again) use ad hominem to discredit my points doesn’t really work when it comes to me providing evidence does it?

If a poster here states categorically that the sky is green, I’m going to call them out on it and provide a link to a picture of the sky so readers can see with their own eyes that the sky is blue. Simple as.

I don’t ‘attack people for not understanding’ - I actively disprove (using evidence and providing my sources) some of the utter … posted by anonymous posters on this bb who I believe have an ulterior motive and an interest other than the success of the company or its operations.

I have, over the years, consistently provided links / verifiable information from which I base my views which is more than can be said for some of the regular posters here who actively try to dictate sentiment, bash the company, and often mislead potential readers by spamming negativity day in day out. There’s little point in debating with these posters as even when proven to be spouting nonsense one day, they come back with the same negative rhetoric the next. It’s pretty obvious to me who these people are and subsequently I’ve gotten bored of wasting my time discussing the company or our operations with them.

I’ve been taking a break from the bb for a while as it basically pointless arguing with some of you lot when it seems like regardless of what I say, or indeed evidence provided, I’ll still be shouted down by a group of posters trying to dictate sentiment. I have better things to do with my time.

But sure, ignore the guy who provides logical argument with evidence to back up his claims whilst listening to the guys that provide no evidence and spout the same negative rhetoric day in day out as though it’s their job.

Something to think about I guess.

"I would say we don't have enough cash to start up this Antimony mine.."

What are you basing that on Gixxer?

Colin made it clear in one of the latest podcasts (around 1:04:20 onward from the 26th Oct Roast Podcast - reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToBR31SN1Ps ) that start up costs were low to build the plant as it is a containerised unit (so it's small and not too costly, relatively speaking - circa $1.5m & 6 months to build) and I'm reasonably sure we still have cash in bank AND several million dollars of continuing payments from Manica inbound.

Care to share where you're getting your info from?

Noting some big buys coming through today..

Apologies for the mistype, edit:

Up from circa 0.55 year to date (circa 86%)

Well that feels like an unnecessary and frankly uncalled for personal attack…?

Forgive me for supporting and being knowledgeable about a company I own a decent percentage of, or for sharing research / verifiable information so the reader can see where I’m getting my information from - how underhanded of me.

Personally I’m more wary of posters who say a lot but very little at the same time… are you offering any actual discussion points about something specific regarding company operations?

Or are you just coming to sling some mud at me when the last thing I posted was several days ago and contained the statement “I would absolutely encourage readers to not trust people on a bb”.

Who’s really trying to influence people’s decisions here, eh?

Ps. XTR is up circa 55% year to date, interesting use of emotive language re stating the share price is “freefalling”.

One might argue that since the “bottom” around March the share price has been “climbing” as progress has been made, but I’m probably just “cheerleading” by stating that, even though it’s verifiable and correct, right?

Personally I’m wary of any poster who has a lot of negative (or indeed positive) things to say, with very little actual substance. The content of posts is often a dead giveaway.

A key trait i watch out for is rarely commenting on any tangible company operations or progress the company has made / is making (as an investor keen to see their company and subsequently their investment flourish might do) and instead consistently focusing on anything negative regardless of when it happened or that is may have little to no effect to the business ongoing.

I would absolutely encourage readers to not trust people on a bb kwak, to be honest it should be pretty clear to anyone reading this bb which posters have something useful to say and provide verifiable information / general chatter about current business matters - and then on the contrary - which posters spout constant, inane, emotive waffle designed to influence buyers or sellers…

It’s almost like money leads to people using underhanded tactics… eh?

Howezap, I think a placing is something other companies have to do when they don’t have an income and they haven’t monetised an asset to be able to pay for ongoing operations.

Unfamiliar territory with XTR these days…

Crossed wires Howezap - ‘The estimates given for capital in the financial study are toward the 20mtpa and 10mtpa processors.’

This is what I meant when I said they had already been estimated - I.e we have rough numbers established to work from so some posters throwing around $5-10bn for the likely capital cost of Bushranger (just because it is a porphyry deposit) was wildly inaccurate.

I’m in agreement with you that these figures will have likely been improved upon (I.e reduced) since the study in November ‘23.

Probably because demonstrating reworked robust project economics based on multiple lines of improvement (capital cost reduction / metals prices fluctuating / ore concentrate upgrading etc) isn’t as simple as just plugging the new numbers into an old excel spreadsheet and saying “hey, we did it”.

An enormous amount of work leading to the collation of data from several moving parts goes into these projects to prove to a potential suitor that it is economically viable and subsequently worth purchasing and developing, that is our end game, is it not?

Why jump the gun if further improvements are still being worked on, especially when metals prices seem to keep on increasing…?

We can clearly see that capital costs have already been estimated so we have a ballpark capex cost- these figures will have likely been improved upon since this study.

We can also clearly see that metals prices for any updated reworking of project economics have changed significantly: Gold ($1,900/oz assumption, currently circa $4,100/oz), Silver ($22/oz assumption, currently circa $48/oz). Copper prices have also increased significantly since Nov ‘23.

Costs reducing and sale price of the product increasing… everything’s going the right way as far as I’m concerned.

The information is already out there, and contrary to the view that some posters appear to be pushing, the view of the project is undeniably becoming more positive as metals prices increase and costs are driven down.

In my view the general negativity surrounding the project by some of the posters on this bb is undeserved.

It sure would be interesting to see an updated financial study…

Since we’re discussing Bushranger I thought I’d offer up a couple of excerpts from the Pit Optimisation & Financial Modelling Study delivered by optimal mining in November ‘23

“The pit optimisation assessment was undertaken utilising the following assumptions:

· Capital Cost Estimate - AU$713M (10Mtpa), AU$1,159M (20Mtpa)

· Copper Sales Price - US$8,000/t, $9,000/t, $10,000/t, $11,000/t

· Gold Sales Price - US$1,900/oz

· Silver Sales Price - US$22/oz

Conclusions of Bushranger Study

1. The Racecourse deposit contains significant low-grade tonnes of copper, gold and silver which may be economically recoverable at copper sale prices above US$10,000/t.

…

5. Due to its large size and grade, conditions are expected to be excellent for the efficient and productive mining of the deposit.

6. The economic recovery of all metals (copper, gold, silver) from low grade ores (

7. Optimisation of the processing plant capacity, capital cost, metallurgical recoveries and operating cost has the potential to greatly improve the economic viability of the project and further work is warranted in all of these areas.”

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/bushranger-pit-optimisation-financial-study-jxp0lzmb606mvwu.html

Your entire point hinges on hindsight lucky.

It’s pretty easy to say “they should have done this” when you know what the outcome is several years later.

Manica was a risk, gold price was a variable, next phase of mining was a risk, we were a ‘junior’ partner without operational control and would have had to contribute accordingly at the whim of the ‘senior’ to protect our share. If other junior/senior relationships are to be looked at in mining projects, the junior, with no say in what the spend is, often ends up diluted out of the project.

We monetised the project to give financial stability and move forward with other projects rather than be living life on the edge of a blade.

The BoD took a lower risk option so as not to completely screw XTR if Manica didn’t go to plan, they were being arguably overly cautious, it’s fair to say I didn’t even agree with it at the time - but I can appreciate the caution with which they operated.

If gold price hadn’t continued to rise, or the mine not gone to plan, we’d all be sat here furious that the BoD had gambled on it.

Fact is, we monetised an asset that we had no operational control in and that is paying (/has paid) for the acquisition of other assets / exploration & development.

Stop crying over spilt milk, we’re still being paid for an asset we sold and as a result we now have multiple assets that we DO have operational control over.

Colin Bird Executive Chairman said:

"The Manica Project will be transitioning to the complex ore phase which has not yet been fully scoped or technically and financially modelled. We do not want to be exposed to this risk, particularly in exciting copper times for our Company...”

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/proposed-disposal-of-manica-gold-project-6q16ennwdb3xhx4.html

With the benefit of hindsight it’s easy to say we should’ve done XYZ. I’ll be honest, i leaned more to the side of keeping the project, but, being realistic, if the next stage of developing Manica had created unforeseen complications it could’ve ruined us. Sensible (if not a little reserved) play from the BoD in my opinion.

Monetising the asset has created a period of financial stability and effectively paid for multiple acquisitions / will pay for a lot of exploration & development of those new assets.

A reasonable stance to hold Jackbal and I’m not looking for an argument either, just for the company to be fairly represented when it comes to the progress that IS being made.

Looking at the potential instead of towards the worst case scenario It’s fair to say that if the dumps purchased end up being used for processing / sold then they could turn a decent profit.

Re chilibwe: “The licence is currently subject to a dispute with the previous joint venture partner which has restricted Chilibwe from developing the project, and a case has been lodged with the High Court for Zambia to have the existing joint venture terminated, releasing the 100% interest in the licence back to Chilibwe.”

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/half-year-report-i9cu219e4y9ou39.html

Should the case land in the favour of Chilibwe (which is likely imo) then we may just have got ourselves an absolute bargain due to taking ‘the risk’.

We have other projects that are arguably more reliable progressing at a decent pace so why not take a couple of side punts that could swing heavily in our favour if they come off…?

Speculate to accumulate…