Member Info for JDAU

Yeah, I've read through the thread and I've gotta be honest, still struggling to work it out.

My thoughts, simplified and summarised are that GLR don't need to transfer the licence as a result of the (imo incredibly convoluted) deal structure and own the rights to 95% of the project via their subsidiary with the other 5% sitting in the hands of the Gov.

Does that sound about right or am I off the mark?

CaveatEmptor can I pick your brains over at Glr?
Any help/pointing in the direction of info would be much appreciated.

Can I pick the brains of some of the LTH's here...?

I've been trying to work out the state of play here re a few of the different projects and noted this RE Star zinc in the half year report:

"· Galileo agreed an arrangement ("Arrangement") with BMR to assume the rights to BMR's Mauritian subsidiary, Enviro Mining Limited and its wholly-owned Zambian subsidiaries, which include, amongst other things the title to the licences for Star Zinc and Ka****u (zinc willemite) Projects. The Arrangement, which is subject to Zambian Ministry approval, is for nil consideration since the Company has earned-in its 95% right to the two projects. Galileo has decided to cease seeking Ministry approval and therefore will no longer be assuming the rights from BMR."

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/GLR/half-year-report-53zurqww9ao0ufe.html

Can anyone shed any light on what this means? I have a view on this but may be wayyyy off the mark.

Thoughts/reference links to back up posts appreciated as I'm struggling to work out what's going on...

Holdings.

“The close association of pyrrhotite with the chalcopyrite copper mineralisation, suggest the Racecourse Mineral Resource is a reduced copper-gold porphyry deposit, in contrast to the oxidised porphyry copper-gold deposits, which are more common throughout the Lachlan Fold Belt in New South Wales. Reduced copper-gold porphyry deposits are known to have a higher proportion of gold in comparison to copper.”

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/geochemical-update-on-bushranger-project-urg5n9bt5k8o95d.html

“The close association of pyrrhotite with the chalcopyrite copper mineralisation, suggest the Racecourse Mineral Resource is a reduced copper-gold porphyry deposit, in contrast to the oxidised porphyry copper-gold deposits, which are more common throughout the Lachlan Fold Belt in New South Wales. Reduced copper-gold porphyry deposits are known to have a higher proportion of gold in comparison to copper.”

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/geochemical-update-on-bushranger-project-urg5n9bt5k8o95d.html

The 'mind games' are a transparent attempt at knocking the share price, that coupled with said posters lack of understanding of the various projects XTR has equate to a poster I don't believe anyone could possibly take seriously.

However yes, I agree that it's seriously over the top, posting nothing of substance, flooding the bb with irrelevant posts and coming across as desperate to be heard as an incessantly screaming toddler is quite frankly pretty embarrassing.

At risk of spam posting these XRF results (though I do feel like they are an incredibly important piece of the puzzle)..

CB isn't concerned about the grades because 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

Nb. CB's comments about the relationship between copper grades/gold grades through his interviews may very well tell you why he's 'not concerned'.

Trying to use ADVFN is horrendous... UI would suggest their chat system looks like it was designed in the 1980's.

Agreed cyberiachas - it's all about the scale and valuations differ depending on this.

I'd suggest what we already looks good to be commercial but that is of course my own opinion pieced together from RNS's, XRF's & previous drill campaigns. Happy to wait on the assays before I get too excited.

Lucky I've just created an account there under the same name so I'm going to head on over to LSE and have a chat with their resident moron... gotta fill my time somehow whilst I'm waiting on results, eh? XD

I feel like you're not picking up what I'm putting down.

The metal value in the ground in no way related to the price we paid for it, this is because it's not a straightforward deal structure of money for asset. It is not a "valuation of £1.25m", i.e. "here's £1.25m cash now walk away" - because it was paid in shares which intrinsically can change in value based on market valuations.

By accepting XTR shares in lieu of cash they are effectively happy exposing themselves to the upsides of bushranger (plus being able to sit back whilst someone else funds the development / makes the sale etc.) alongside also having exposure to all of XTR's other projects.

In the same way I was buying XTR between 0.6-2pps knowing that I would be able to sell those shares for significantly more down the road. The market didn't value XTR higher at the time, I did.

That doesn't mean all of XTR's projects were only worth £5-10m last year and suddenly now they're worth £40m (even though I understand that's exactly what it was "Valued" at at the time, i.e SP x total shares in issue and subsequently is now valued at) - different entities assign different value based on their own view is what I'm trying to say.

Exactly the same thing applies in terms of the asset sale.

Thanks Lucky :) should've probably guessed that..

link?

Nope.

"As announced on 1 June 2020, the Company concluded a conditional Sale and Purchase Agreement (the "Acquisition Agreement") to acquire the entire issued share capital of ProspectOre Ltd ("ProspectOre") for a total consideration of £1.25 million, to be satisfied in new Xtract ordinary shares."

"Under the terms of the acquisition agreement , the shareholders of ProspectOre were required to sign share transfer certificates, agreeing to exchange their shares in ProspectOre for shares in Xtract."

ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/bushranger-copper-gold-progress-update-dmuc92goxo5ufqs.html

Edit:
That 100m shares in XTR (the £1.25m "price") at todays share prices are worth nearly £5.8m.
N.b At 8pps it's £8m, at 20pps it's £20m etc.

Apologies... £1.25m part of the deal was in £ not $.

Cyberiachas, that's oversimplifying the deal imo.

We didn't just stump up cash for an asset for them to walk away, they took shares and subsequently were able to remain exposed to the projects upside. I don't think you should get too caught up on the $1.25m figure because I would suggest that the structure of the deal meant that they knew they'd end up with considerably more than that original figure.

That 100m shares in XTR (the $1.25m "price") at todays share prices are worth nearly $8m.
N.b At 8pps it's $11mn, at 20pps it's $27.5m etc.

We paid them (mostly) in shares at 1.25pps:
"Xtract has agreed to conditionally purchase all of the issued share capital of ProspectOre ("Sale Shares") for a total consideration of £1.25 million, which will be satisfied by the allotment and issue of 100,000,000 new Ordinary Shares of 0.02p each ("Consideration Shares") at an issue price of 1.25p per Ordinary Share, to be settled upon completion."

We settled their debts:
"In addition to the Consideration Shares, Xtract has agreed that on notification by the Seller, prior to Completion, to settle from existing cash resources, a maximum amount of A$200,000 (£108,000) in cash relating to outstanding liabilities of ProspectOre, primarily being the cost to acquire the Anglo Tenements as described above, and Director loans of A$25,000 (£13,500)"

We agreed to aggressively progress the project:
"Xtract has agreed to spend at least A$350,000 (£189,000) on exploration drilling and resource definition drilling on the Tenements within twelve months of the date of Completion. The exploration costs will be funded from existing cash resources and future cash flows."

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

They knew we'd progress the project quickly and that they could essentially ride on our coat tails as part of the deals structure, that doesn't mean the assets value was $1.25m worth of metal in the ground.
It meant that they perceived $1.25m worth of XTR shares at 1.25pps a good deal for the asset because they knew how much those shares would be worth in the not too distant future (imo).

Excuse the typo... I blame the weather.

Ps. for those trying to work out wether grades will be commercial or not, very worth noting the following statement:

"The Phase One drilling programme will follow up drill intersections such as 159m @ 0.4% Cu and 0.2g/t Au in drill hole BRD001 and 169m @ 0.4% Cu and 0.1g/t Au in drill hole BRD009 (as previously announced these drill results have not yet been independently tested or verified by Xtract) and investigate the zonation of higher gold grades within the Racecourse Mineral Resource."

ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/bushranger-commencement-of-drilling-98veayivcjvrvy0.html

Piece that together with the copper grades from the XRF and the commentary surrounding gold/ increased mineralisation at depth and I'd suggest you may already have the answer, assays will just confirm what we can already work out from info available (imo).