Member Info for JDAU

Sorry Jackbal, I was too busy reading children’s books to Jez so he understands them properly and can tell the stories to other people without making up his own version of events.

Also Jez, i just can’t help myself…

“…handful of beans the giant gave us for our gold mine”

Solid attempt at an emotive post but because I’m a stickler for accuracy this irritated me - once again, I’m having to call you out on a poor portrayal of something that is easily verifiable…. and I can’t believe this has now extended to a children’s story but here we go.

In the story of Jack and the giant beanstalk the giant didn’t give Jack the beans, Jack sold his family cow at market for 5 magic beans. His mother was angry and threw the beans out the window which then grew into a giant beanstalk overnight, Jack then climbed the beanstalk and visited the giants domain. Jack was fed by the giants wife (who lied about him being there) and he also plundered some of the giants belongings - sacks of gold coins, a golden egg and finally an enchanted harp.

After getting away with the other thefts, the harp alerted the giant as Jack was stealing it but ultimately Jack raced away back down the beanstalk, cut it down as the giant followed him down causing the giants death and basically lived happily ever after whilst being very rich.

Poor analogy to be honest and as often seems to be the case with some of the posters here: an inaccurate rewriting of information that is already out there.

Ref: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_and_the_Beanstalk

I don’t think I have an ‘obsession’ with ad hominem, I just take accuracy and legitimate debate seriously and expect people to engage in ‘proper’ debate when discussing serious matters such as finances/investing.

I take consistent issue with it because it’s a logical fallacy in debating designed to distract or dismiss the original argument in lieu of discrediting the person.

It is not a valid argument in any way, shape or form.

In simple terms, you cease to engage with the argument/points of debate and instead engage in mud slinging in an attempt to discredit an argument that you cannot legitimately argue against.

It’s widely accepted that it get’s you laughed out of any serious discussion, that is why I tend to highlight when it is used instead of structured debate.

“Anyway, you just carry on with your positive view on things because we all konw we won't see you for dust if this ever reaches your target price.”

Nearly missed your snipe, I’d say that’s not like you to resort to ad hominem when the debate gets too challenging but an increasing pile of evidence points to the contrary.

Play the ball, not the man, eh Jez?

“Did you miss the bits about debt, what we could have done and their indebtedness to us ?”

- did you miss the bit about them financing the capex of the project and having operational control?

The rules of engagement were not ours to dictate, that is what happens when someone else pays for your dinner - you might not get to choose where you’re going, the important thing is you still get to eat.

In fairness Jez, your post read like you didn’t understand how we lost operational control, I was responding to that in order to explain how/why that happened.

Apologies for thinking the words you wrote were indicative of your understanding.

“Or you could say an operation we once owned 100% of but over several years we that we lost control of it somehow.”

It feels like you don’t understand why this happened and so the premise of your argument is completely flawed.

“Lost control of it somehow’ - there is no mystery about it.

We couldn’t afford to finance the capex of the project, someone else could and took the lion’s share, it’s that simple.

Someone else came along with the money, paid the capex to set up the plant/mine and subsequently took operational control.

We are now the ‘someone else with money’ going around to other projects offering expertise and importantly financing allowing us to take operational control of said project(s).

That is how the mining business works.

How’s that understanding going?

Considering we sold / monetised an asset we didn’t have operational control of that was heading into an arguably more risky phase of development and now have several assets progressing on different fronts that we are now financing / have operational control of, I’d say it was a pretty solid strategic move.

Sounds more to me like I perhaps didn’t fully understand the strategic thinking behind monetising an asset which was perceived as too big a risk to the company and its shareholders in order to provide financing for multiple different assets which are now progressing at pace and likely to provide a larger return than Manica which is ultimately to the benefit of shareholders.

That’s why CB is the boss and I’m not.

Andrew, me writing 2/3 posts that questioned the validity of a huge shakeup of the company is not comparable to the same posters writing the same negative spiel day after day with no other motive than to negatively effect confidence in the company.

It’s borderline market manipulation under the guise of “worried investors”.

We’re funded due to CB monetising an asset, we have multiple projects progressing at a good pace, having had no ‘negative’ news for several years yet there’s always something negative to say… apparently.

For the record Andrew, I’m not saying ‘others should not criticise CB's decisions, but I can’.

I’m stating that the same, constant, negative rhetoric of either misinformation about projects or CB being attacked for things that barely even make logical sense day after day after day isn’t the same as me posting 2 or 3 posts that erred on the side of negativity but were arguably justified comments at a tense time for the company.

On balance, having seen CB’s visions for the future of the company and having a better understanding of what that cash has paid for in terms of our current projects I wholeheartedly think CB did the correct thing for the company and investors here by monetising an asset we didn’t have operational control of in order to pay for the assets we have now.

Andrew, it’s fair to say I was angry at the decision at the time.

I stand by my comments accurately reflecting how I felt at the time but on balance, having seen what Colin’s vision of the future of XTR looks like, I’ve come to understand the “pivot”.

What I’m seeing from the projects the Manica cash has paid for looks very positive, but before I had that information on said projects, it’s fair to say I was doubtful and frustrated.

If you want a good starting point: https://xtractresources.com/projects-operations/

Do your own research.

Why would I go out of my way to write a post justifying an investment case to you?

Why should I share my notes/research that I believe can make me money with people who consistently mock me for being positive about a company I’m invested in?

People are free to move their money around as they please so quite frankly, If you’re not confident in a company you’re invested in, you’re an idiot.

You all understand that our various projects are run by their own management teams right?

I.e XTR’s business model is not one where an active CEO is required with boots on the ground for the projects to progress.

It sure feels like there’s a lack of understanding about the company and how it operates…

Oh sorry, I didn’t realise a different CEO would be able to change the metallurgy of rock that’s been in situ for thousands of years.

Completely disagree. We don’t need a change of leadership and Colin would absolutely have my support to continue on as the head of XTR.

A different ‘head’ isn’t going to make any difference to the speed of building a road, drilling, lab assays, metallurgy etc.

Exploration & Mine development takes time - a different person at the top isn’t going to change that and quite frankly, I see CB making some cracking deals and filling up the pipeline with positive and progressive projects.

Re-read the post. I’m not arguing semantics, I’m saying you’re wrong as we have several months of what would be classed as “drilling season” left before what is fair to class as a quieter period, I.e. ‘wet season’.

‘Think we are now moving into a slower pace for a few months’ - that comment alone demonstrates your lack of knowledge (or indeed willingness to mislead) as it shows that you know seemingly nothing about the seasonal cycle of Zambia.

Even a quick Google would tell you that’s a stupid statement.

“There are two main seasons: the rainy season (November to April) corresponding to summer, and the dry season (May to October/November), corresponding to winter. The dry season is subdivided into the cool dry season (May to August), and the hot dry season (September to October/November)”

Ref: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Zambia

Sure though, we’re probably ‘moving into a quiet period’ when we have multiple projects progressing with several months of drilling and exploration ahead of us before the wet, I.e quieter season.

Do your own research people, some of these posters don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.

Having a good understanding of company operations and being able to back up what I stated (at any given time) by providing details from RNS’s with reference points for cross reference isn’t ‘ramping’, it’s providing a reasoned, logical argument which is verifiable.

Stating repetitive, nonsense, negative rhetoric which often borders on misinformation on a daily basis with no foundation or evidence for negative statements made is however ‘bashing’ if you want to go down the “ramper v basher” route.