Member Info for JDAU

In fairness, what more is there to say?

We can guess all we like but proof of concept will be in the assays.
One might argue that the information is already out there to some extent, you've just got to know where to look and be good at jigsaws..

Quiet? That 500k buy begs to differ...

Good bit of promo: https://www.thearmchairtrader.com/xtract-resources-share-price-08032021/

Re grades: 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

Just a quick repost summary/link of the interview for anyone who missed it last week, definitely worth a listen if you haven't already:

@4.30 mins: “lets just simply Imagine a cube, 1000x1000x1000, turn that to cubic meters and multiply by the specific gravity of around about 2.7 - that’s a whopping great piece of rock, so I think we’re past ‘is it big / isn’t it big’….”

@5.45 “These things aren’t cubes, these things are generally cylindrical, I see on the board they’re talking about multi porphorys, I can’t help but agree with them - we’ve seen several different types of apparent cores, so if you get different types of apparent cores by definition you’re probably talking about multi porphyry systems, so, Zac, it’s certainly big…”

@ 6.50 mins "Interestingly this is looking big enough to be able to fly on copper, so you can imagine, if the gold, when, lets all say when (chuckles) , when we prove that the gold is present in sufficient quantities then that's going to enhance..."

@ 8.28 mins “we’ve got a nice portfolio.. good lord when that Manica Project comes in it’s going to be producing nice earnings, as is the the associated alluvials and smaller hard rock situations, as is Zambia with its’ copper projects, so it is a kind of conglomerate.

@ 9.00 “(Laughs at Zac) I wouldn’t say there’s 4p for bushranger, you’ve only got to go across the road(?) and look at Boda who’s our next door neighbour - and our geologists are convinced we’ve got a better subject than them - they’ve got a market cap of 400m (corrects himself) 500m Australian dollars.”

@9.35 re bushranger “Recognise that it would transform any company, in Toronto, In London, in Australia - What we’re talking about here is not just another discovery, we’re talking when we talk bushranger, we’re talking about, like I say, this is the Melbourne cup, and we’ve got a front runner Zac.”

Ref: https://www.share-talk.com/colin-bird-executive-chairman-xtract-resources-plc-xtr-l-interview-10/#gs.uzeudv

Amen to that Datacheck.

Surely even Cyber can appreciate the comedic timing in their post / the RNS dropping.
Certainly made me chuckle...

Out. Not much to take in, 5m warrants.

Sumo - worth noting the following exert(s) from the RNS:

"For information but not as a forecast of future production at the Star Zinc Project on 14 November 2018 the Company announced that following a second phase of drilling the tonnage target was between 600,000 to 900,000 tonnes with an estimated average grade of 10-12% zinc at above 3% cut off grade."

"Siege have indicated their intention to commence mining imminently, producing in the range of 6,000 to 15,000 tons a month of saleable ore but it is recognised the initial production may be lower."

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/GLR/sale-of-star-zinc-project-strategy-update-xpz0siivm8sdl4z.html

Just to provide some rough calcs to demonstrate likely longevity of the monthly income:
600,000 T at a rate of 6,000Tpcm = 100 months (8.3 years)
600,000 T at a rate of 15,000Tpcm = 40 months (3.3 years)

900,000 T at a rate of 6,000Tpcm = 150 months (12.5 years)
900,000 T at a rate of 15,000Tpcm = 60 months (5 years)

I'd suggest a PE of 10 is a over the top for this project but I'm in agreement with the sentiment of your post, the monthly income will go a long way to supporting the current Mcap. Some of the other project could blow it out of the water imo.

3cardbrag, do you not understand the statement: "...topography of which does not suit itself to urbanisation."?

Stating "Let's hope the Zambians don't build a load of housing, schooling and amenities around it then or we can also kiss that goodbye" after quoting the exert I originally quoted leads me to believe you don't.

If it's not suitable for urbanisation then people aren't going to build there... and frankly, I can't believe I'm having to explain that.

Ella10, in fairness, the comms from the company have been good recently, within the framework of what CB can legally say at any given time I feel he's done a good job of keeping us in the loop re asset progression.

I can't speak for how some of the more long termers feel about communication over the years but I'd say it's been really good of late with multiple RNS's/interviews, certainly since you the date you created your account on LSE in mid November 2020.

Ella10, we have our clarity on Ka****u as per the update via RNS / podcast as far as I'm concerned.
I've summarised in my previous post & given the information so you can verify.

Ella10, from the RNS:

"Ka****u Project: The Ka****u zinc project in Zambia has similar characteristics to the Star Zinc project but is considered to be larger and the Company plan an exploration program for 2021 with the primary objective of developing a resource for the supply to a nearby refinery and / or the raw ore export market. The Ka****u area is in open land the topography of which does not suit itself to urbanisation."

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/GLR/sale-of-star-zinc-project-strategy-update-xpz0siivm8sdl4z.html

@ 3.55mins in the interview, ref: https://www.share-talk.com/colin-bird-executive-chairman-galileo-resources-glr-l-interview/#gs.ulnb8e
Re Ka****u:
"It's a bigger project, so we can do much of the same... - (can't really decipher the bit he says about joining in)- ... but we'd probably retain ownership this time around, or it could go to a nearby zinc refinery, so Ka****u is still very much in play."

I wouldn't be surprised to see another contractor agreement in the not too distant future for the resource.
GLR is starting to look like it's following the pattern of another of CB's companies, well played Colin, well played.

Ps thanks for posting the link to TODAY's interview Hufc1908 - would suggest all give it a listen.

@ 2.45mins
"Maths say nearer $300k a month - this will be a good income provider"

Looks like my calcs this morning were there or thereabouts then. (As are Data's)

An aggressive buyer might have something to do with it imo.

Morning CE - completely agree, seen it before having been in CB's companies for years.

Re SP, keep an eye out for the 500k's, I can almost guarantee the SP won't stay at the current level for long. ;)

...time for me to get the hoover

Think I’m getting mixed up re concentrate price vs ore processed...

Looks pretty good on the face of it, no?

Unless I’m mistaken, a token amount of cash for the sale + at current zinc prices royalty payments of what, circa $150-300k a month from this one agreement for the foreseeable?