Member Info for JDAU

You all realise that all that phase 1 drilling significantly increased the size of the resource compared to the figures this study is based on, right? ...and that phase 2 will continue to increase the size of the resource?

I'd disagree with you Jamesiecakes, this study proves unequivocally that at circa $11k / T copper ($5/lb) in scenario 10, it is commercially viable, you can't argue with that.

I agree that a prudent stance is 'just because you can doesn't mean you will', i.e todays news doesn't necessarily mean someone will proceed with the current metrics/Jorc but that's literally the point... we're not expecting them too, hence the several thousand meters drilling in phase 1 and the several thousand meters more drilling we're currently doing with phase 2.

"The preliminary open pit economic modelling in the Conceptual Study showed that an open pit based on the current geological model, which includes the estimated Inferred Resource, at Racecourse could pay back the cost of capital for a combined open pit and underground mining operation while being NPV positive based only on an initial open pit operation."

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

"When the results of the Phase One and Phase Two drilling programmes are incorporated into the Racecourse mineralisation model, Xtract expects that the Inferred Resource will increase significantly in size, which will have a strongly positive effect on the overall economics of a mining operation at Racecourse."

Worth paying close attention when reading the RNS:

“The preliminary open pit economic modelling in the Conceptual Study showed that an open pit based on the current geological model, which includes the estimated Inferred Resource, at Racecourse could pay back the cost of capital for a combined open pit and underground mining operation while being NPV positive based only on an initial open pit operation. When the results of the Phase One and Phase Two drilling programmes are incorporated into the Racecourse mineralisation model, Xtract expects that the Inferred Resource will increase significantly in size, which will have a strongly positive effect on the overall economics of a mining operation at Racecourse.”

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

Good to see the ‘better class of investor’ populating the bb of late…

Highlights

· The Phase Two drilling programme at Racecourse has commenced on schedule, with drilling already at 20m depth on the first hole
· A second rig has arrived on site and will start drilling at the second drill pad overnight
· The Company will provide more details of its drilling aims and progress as the programme advances

Out.

Interview out on V O X: https://www.**********.co.uk/articles/traders-cafe-with-zak-mir-colin-bird-executive-chairman-xtract-resources-ac8863c

Ella10, any chance you could provide a reference point for that statement?
As far as I was aware Phase 2 drilling starts in July, not necessarily on Monday.

Happy to be shown where you've got that info from - after all, I think it's important to base our expectations of company operations on company news releases instead of conjecture.

Almost as dodgy as LSE bb’s littered with freshly made multi accounts and filled to the brim with ulterior motives…

Re-read your post and I feel exactly the same Ella10.

Thinking you’re well researched without having browsed the company website to analyse projects/accounts/company structure seems a little odd to me…

I stand by what I said: if you’ve researched any company you’re investing in to a point where you feel ‘well researched’ enough to invest, you shouldn’t be ‘surprised’ by something on their website.

Ella10, not sure how you can claim to be ‘well researched’ yet be ‘surprised’ or even ‘really surprised’ by something on the company website…

Interview: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GBSaqFttIyY

Great to see the team communicating in a balanced and confident way.

I'm feeling overwhelmingly positive about the project (regardless of recent share price action).
Jeremy Reed lit up when asked wether they'd hit that 2m T AA clause - using 2 drill rigs, 6 months of drilling, finding the high grade areas, lots of news inbound H2 2021 and confident of achieving their objective.

Also worth noting that organising an external company to work on open pit design is with the intention of arming XTR with their 'decision to mine' ammo should they choose to exercise that side of the AA clause.

All in all a good interview and looks to me like triggering the AA buy back is a question of when, not if.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/GBSaqFttIyY

Even though the SP decline doesn't exactly thrill me, one has to laugh at the short sightedness of traders...
Maybe what we have here will sink in when people actually realise what this drilling campaign set out to achieve vs what the second campaign beginning early Q3 will be setting out to prove:

"· As announced on 17 May 2021, the Company has engaged external mining consultants to build a financial model to investigate the economics of open pit extraction of the shallower ore"
"· The planned Phase 2 drilling programme at Racecourse is on track for commencement early in Quarter 3, 2021 which will focus on further definition of the shallower higher-grade zone and testing of the deposit extensions to the south and east as suggested by the recent IP geophysics survey"
Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/bushranger-project-further-drill-assay-results-aq58n2nth7gqtyi.html

https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/7985Z_2-2021-5-25.pdf
Look at the results to the South East (top right for clarity) on the diagram above.

http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/7490Y_2-2021-5-14.pdf
Then look at the IP results to the South East (bottom right for clarity) on the IP PDF

Doesn't take a genius to see that there will likely be significantly more (imo) high grade material to the South East, close to surface. The 'fast money' will no doubt come flying back when they start getting spoon fed results of +0.5% CuEq coupled with the realisation that the higher grade material is closer to the surface and subsequently cheaper to extract/process... maybe then they'll realise that todays drill results are an extension/additional part of the resource which add huge amount of scale / optionality regarding the Life of Mine.

@Theiceberg - just wanted to say a quick thanks for providing an anchor point for my sanity, it's appreciated.

>Why is it a one that holds an alternative view is accused of deramping or has sinister inventions.

Because there are snakes in the grass that try to wilfully mislead/misinform to suit their own agenda, perfectly proved by my previous post regarding hydrogens comment.

Agreed iceberg, he's talking absolute nonsense:

Hydrogen: "A large open pit appears ruled out due to large unfortunate shape and overburdened."

Colin Bird: "The higher-grade sections appear to occur at shallower depths and form a "cap" of higher-grade mineralisation over the top of the central porphyry intrusion. We believe this enhances the ability to potentially open pit mine the Racecourse copper mineralisation. Consequently, we have engaged external mining consultants to build a financial model of what an open pit mining operation could look like at Racecourse."

ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/bushranger-project-further-drill-assay-results-aq58n2nth7gqtyi.html

All good my end Ella10, the only thing causing 'red mist' are the posters (imo) intentionally misunderstanding/misleading in order to try and suggest todays news is negative. Certainly stinks of an agenda to me - especially with the amount of random new poster accounts that turn up to support said agenda having never had a look in previous, but whatever, par for the course i suppose.

Regardless, looking at the facts: theres more copper, it's an economic grade and the resource keeps getting bigger drill by drill.

Some posters seem to be 'forgetting' about the drill results we already have demonstrating the high grade material is close to surface whilst failing to mention that todays news is about MORE copper at the grades given AS WELL AS the resource we already have, it's not demonstrating grades are lower than expected as some are suggesting?!

The 'lower grades' are for an extension of the resource as well as having the higher grade material we've already been informed about, hence why I keep spamming the link to the diagram that demonstrates irrefutably what these drills mean.

Skip the uninformed conjecture, look at the facts:
Racecourse Mineral Resource Long Section- http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/7985Z_2-2021-5-25.pdf
Racecourse Mineral Resource Cross Section- http://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/7985Z_3-2021-5-25.pdf

The lack of understanding here is painful.

I don't agree with you re expectations set Ella, I knew roughly what to expect from these assays due to comms from the company and I'm more than satisfied that they delivered.

Todays results demonstrate a significant extension of the resource at an economic grade, I don't understand those who are trying to suggest this is a bad thing.

CleverThoughts, today’s results are a piece of a much bigger jigsaw, if you look at the diagram released alongside the RNS which demonstrates the significance of holes 2&3 and think it’s bad news you need your head checking IMO.

Ref: https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/7985Z_2-2021-5-25.pdf