Member Info for JDAU

Sure feels like you’re clutching at straws Gixxer-600.

I wouldn’t go buying yourself a deerstalker hat anytime soon…

Billy, It's fair of me to suggest that a constantly posted negative (or indeed positive) rhetoric may influence the sale (or purchase) of shares by less sophisticated investors who are casually browsing through stocks bb's to get a sense for how things are going. That is literally those posters game plan.

This is the basis for the whole argument about "bashers" vs "rampers".

I stand by my statement, if you believe every poster on any given bb is a genuine shareholder - 'ramping' the positives or 'just voicing concern' about the negatives 18 times a day for a prolonged period of time then imo you're incredibly gullible.

The fact that some posters try to blag that they were high flying ftse analysts / directors / 'insert job title that promotes their authority on the subject here' is laughable - anyone who's ever been that successful doesn't spend their days posting repetitively on an lse forum.

Of course things posted on bb's can have an effect on the share price.

If you think every poster on LSE is a legitimate one with no other agenda/ulterior motive you need your head checking imo.

Thank the Lord we have such an altruist amongst us, eh guys?

Really glad you put forward such a sensible, well constructed and not at all repetitive argument Kwakadu - I’ll probably just ignore all of the work I’ve put into understanding the company / it’s operations and just sell all my shares now.

Jees, so lucky I have someone like you to tell me how it is and for the record, I’m not at all suspicious about your motive for the constant bashing posts now.

Definitely doesn’t seem at all like you could have an ulterior motive.

Thanks for your help.

Joey, without wishing to be rude, no-one here is asking about your investments or about Clontarf and yet you keep spamming the board about it.

Good luck in your investments, but can we please keep the XTR bb for matters relating to XTR instead of using it as a platform to trash this company (our company) whilst cross promoting another share.

Completely agree Neil, as a rule of thumb, posters on bb’s shouldn’t be trusted and taking anything information wise from the bb with a spade full of salt would be advisable. (Unless there is evidence to back up said statements)

For the record, I’m one of the guys who claims to have a decent sized holding here and have been here since the Nelson/Chepica/Manica acquisition days, I would encourage you as the reader to not even trust what I say without checking for yourself / doing your own research. (That’s where my penchant for referencing comes in to play)

So many posters try to assert an air of authority over the bb based on jobs that they “definitely have” or huge share holdings that “definitely exist”.

It’s a dangerous game getting caught up believing anyone’s story on here. Ignore the noise, do the work, understand the business, invest at your own risk.

But no-one who posts here has an agenda, right? Guys?

Maybe re-read the post that you effectively misquoted by selectively leaving out the part which makes it clear it’s a post about XTR.

It’s normally advisable to read a sentence in full.

Steve, maybe it’s just me, but it seems odd that you’d think that post was about any company other than XTR when it’s on the XTR BB, regarding our deal with AA and the second part of the post directly after your (arguably selective) partial quote is as follows:

“The project won’t be going anywhere while the onus and risks will be on Xtract to de risk and show it can be a viable mine.”

Seems awfully like you’re just trying to find an excuse to cross bb post about another share that you’re involved with to me…

Andrew, whilst I broadly agree with your statement, the SP is up circa 60% in the last month.

Hands in the air, as a long term holder of a large number of shares - even I traded that move.

Buys at 1.30-1.50 to sell at 2.00-2.20, cheers then.

Personally I think putting a sub £50m market cap as your “max target” for all that XTR has to offer is pessimistic.

Andrew, the comment "5 years or 30 years" seems rather flippant to me considering that question has already been answered in the original open pit mining study almost two years ago: 9 years LoM = positive NPV.

Looking to the future of the project, the figures are likely to be greatly improved upon via the methods discussed.

LW I completely agree with you, hence me drawing attention to the fact that within the original open pit study there's a positive NPV assuming only 9 years mine life.

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/bushranger-conceptual-open-pit-mining-study-c05hq78ws9qagfq.html

The previous conceptual pit study doesn't take into account that LoM can be added to significantly via adding volume of ore (which we have done as a result of the drilling campaigns) and we already know there's a situation where the Capex (which is likely to reduce) and Opex (which is also likely to reduce) works for the project (based on the detailed assumptions) then I don't understand how it's not pretty obvious that when LoM is added, and the operating efficiencies are improved, then the NPV becomes considerably more attractive, dare I say, even viable.

To be clear, my view is that on the basis the project is able to be economic (admittedly based on the discussed assumptions) including Capex based off the previous JORC (i.e. prior to all of our exploration / addition of a huge amount of potential ore). When you further improve efficiencies / add significant mine life which can effectively be seen as ‘the Capex is now paid off and we know that this throws off a decent cash margin when only opex is considered’ then I’m assuming this project will be more, not less viable.

An open question to the bb: if the Capex can be paid off using the original open pit model referenced above, and we know the project is viable/throws off good cash when only considering the Opex, what do you think happens when several years life of mine is added to that original model (i.e. after Capex is paid off) AND on top of that the operating margin can be increased significantly through pre-concentration?

Answers on a postcard please.

Now lets look at some of the new information we have from the latest open pit mining study RNS / Updated mineral resource RNS’s:

“Following the completion of a substantial drilling programme by Xtract, independent consultants, Measured Group, updated the historic Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate for the Racecourse Prospect, which is now reported as 512Mt @ 0.22% CuEq*, at a cut-off of 0.1% CuEq, containing 1.1Mt of copper equivalent metal and classified as Indicated and Inferred in accordance with JORC (2012)”

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/racecourse-prospect-updated-mineral-resource-k5dfrxajgs0ls13.html

“A maiden Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate for the Ascot Prospect at the Bushranger Project is reported by independent consultants Measured Group Pty Limited ("Measured Group") as 87Mt @ 0.22% CuEq*, at a cut-off of 0.1% CuEq, containing 0.19Mt of copper equivalent metal and classified as Inferred in accordance with JORC (2012)”

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/ascot-prospect-maiden-mineral-resource-x1tplqdy6mkrsi1.html

“Optimal Mining has identified a copper project with similar grades to Bushranger where pre-concentration reduced the amount of material to be concentrated up to approximately 50%, significantly reducing pre-production capital and operating costs.”

Now lets use our brains a bit… what do you, the reader, without being fed the information by an anonymous poster or being told that this will/won’t work by any of the posters here, think the outcome of an updated open pit conceptual study will be where we assume the following:

Considerably more Ore
Longer Mine life
Considerably lower Opex due to pre concentration
Significantly lower Capex

As detailed in the most recent RNS.
Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/update-on-open-pit-mining-study-for-bushranger-kk3razabvvakq58.html

Let's begin this discussion with the statement: 'NPV of the project is going to be hugely affected by Life of mine (LoM)', considering we're discussing porphyry mining I feel this is often overlooked in bb discussions.

Here are some of the figures/a little info from the original (pre drill campaign) conceptual open pit study:

“Open pit modelling was carried out using the currently defined JORC (2012) compliant Inferred Resource of 71Mt @ 0.44% Cu and 0.064 g/t Au at a cut-off of 0.3% Cu, as well as additional unclassified resources at the Racecourse prospect”

Now I’m sure some of you will remember that a positive NPV (including Capex) was established (Scenario 10) - please see reference for further details.

Some of the key metrics:

Assumes 20mtpa
Assumes $5 / lb
Capex AUD$1,454m (circa $965m)
Opex AUD$4,152m (circa $2,756m)
Mine life 9 years based on total ore assumption of 162mt
8% discount rate NPV AUD$267,768m (circa $177,901m)
10% discount rate NPV AUD$134,943m (circa $89,649m)

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/bushranger-conceptual-open-pit-mining-study-c05hq78ws9qagfq.html

Out.

Still here LW - and I’m all good thanks, how’s tricks?

Wait wait wait, are you saying that you DON’T trust the anonymous poster hiding behind an alias who claims to be the “Director of Analytics for a large FTSE 100 company” in order to give credibility to a damning ‘financial analysis’ that can’t be disproven by other posters as the company hasn’t even released the figures yet?

Where’s the trust gone guys?

Speaks volumes…
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-28/anglo-american-s-new-boss-sounds-warning-on-future-copper-supply