Member Info for JDAU

Just going to post what’s ACTUALLY being communicated by the company in case anyone wants to read/hear with their own eyes/ears what CB/XTR have to say regarding how the route to production is progressing - rather than listening to a version of events from a bb poster who has been caught out lying about company timelines already and seems to repetitively attempt to misrepresent guidance from the company. Once again they appear to be scripting their own rhetoric in the absence of news.

Feb RNS Re Silver King project “The mine plan has been designed and we are about to commence initial blast work and anticipate early access to ore as we deepen the pit into the main breccia pipe area. Within the three month period we anticipate that the operation will be producing a copper concentrate and within six months advance to steady state production.”

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/silverking-mining-licence-joint-venture-n9riurrufnawgqm.html

Latest communication from the company re SK:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC4R8VbMkEs

XTR interview section starts around 56.50mins

Interview at around 59 minutes: “Silver king is on the fourth blast, we’ve already got down to the oxides, we’ll probably sell those oxides to a nearby plant. Our own plant is ready, we finished the tailings dams last week, we’re connected to the external power, we’ve put in place a bigger crusher and we’ve got a ball mill we’re going to put in and an additional ball mill as well. So I’m quite excited about silver king starting off as a modest project around 3, 3.5 thousand tonnes of copper…”

As I said before though, ‘definitely not a negative agenda that is being pushed’ and there is ‘no ulterior motive’ to posters misrepresenting what is happening or trying to spread doubt.

Microcap, I’m curious as to why you view bringing multiple assets (Silver king/Amghas and Ighoud antimony licences) into production “poor strategy”?

Ref:

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/silverking-mining-licence-joint-venture-n9riurrufnawgqm.html

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/wildstone-towards-production-on-antimonylicences-di9q2y056v1zl6h.html

I can concede that it’d be good to get an update on multiple projects, but there’s a pretty coherent strategy as per the RNS’s / company comms.

Believe it or not Ben, I’m aware of the date of the RNS I was referencing - considering it was me who referenced it.

Just an FYI..

Around November 2023 copper price was what, circa $8k/T, Silver was circa $23/Oz and Gold was circa $2k/Oz?

Since that RNS I was taking an excerpt from, Copper price is now circa $14k/T, Silver is circa $75/oz and Gold is circa $4.5k/oz.

… and yet somehow you’re suggesting that it’s a bad thing that we are where we are with the project - can you not see that whilst the project is being improved on both internally and by enlisting specialists (I.e production efficiencies, capex reduction etc) macro variables such as the saleable price of our end product increasing significantly will ultimately lead to an increase in value / potential selling price of BR?

We will, no doubt, at some point get a renewed financial study on the project including up to date financial metrics / operational improvements / capex reduction etc etc.

Of course, using your usual logic, we have not had that RNS yet and so obviously no work has been done, those studies didn’t happen and nothing has changed. (Guess we’ll just ignore metal prices skyrocketing for now…)

There sure is someone full of … but it ain’t Colin.

For the record -

I do remember getting it wrong re ‘need for cash’ and I can happily admit to not seeing that placing coming.

I don’t really see that placing as a bad though in that it will no doubt be ‘value accretive’ rather than ‘just to keep the lights on’.

Isn’t that what placings should in fact be used for…?

The only post I can see of yours referring to (recent) dilution was on the 9th June 2025: “Smells like dilution incoming. Bird has blown what cash we had and requires more to fund his next purchase.”

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/boudica_1/

The ‘few days later’ dilution you appear to be talking about then happened on the 13th November 2025 and has effectively been used to ‘fast track’ multiple projects into production…

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/fundraising-for-1632000000-r13pf1l7vjv9fpn.html

I don’t really remember the discussion you’re referring to, but from a brief look back at what you said vs what actually happened, it appears as though you are talking out of your …

It almost feels like you’re desperately trying to discredit posters who are using the facts to refute a negative rhetoric.

“…there is considerable upside possible through optimisation of plant capacity, capital costs, operating costs and metallurgical recoveries, along with potential incorporation of alternative ore pre-concentration methods. More work is warranted in all these areas but particularly metallurgical studies where improved recoveries could have a knock-on effect on both capital and operating cost.”

Ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/bushranger-pit-optimisation-financial-study-jxp0lzmb606mvwu.html

Since the above RNS, XTR have been working on exactly that as per the subsequent RNS’s relating to BR.

Again Gix, you do not have the necessary data to have anything other than an arguably ill informed opinion on the subject.

AI does not make your opinion seem any more convincing as it obviously also does not have access to the up to date, relevant & necessary data needed to work out the financials of the project.

You should probably leave it to the experts to calculate NPV and subsequently a ball park valuation for the project Gix.

Neither you, nor AI have the necessary data or mine engineering experience needed to work out the value of the project.

Again, you’re welcome to have your own opinion, but don’t paste several paragraphs of AI guff and suddenly act like you have the authority to state how much the project is worth.

“I am qualified - I have a PhD in mathematical modelling - It's my day job - I get paid a significant sum to do it!”

I’m sure you are, and what a convenient way for you to stamp your authority on the subject.

Pffft.

“I'm quite capable of doing my own calculations/Modelling thank you!”

I’m sure you are “definitely qualified”, have the necessary years of mine engineering experience, all of the necessary data and let’s not forget that all of the various professional outfits are wrong whilst you, an anonymous bb poster, is of course, right.

Comical isn’t the word.

Tag in?

Gixxer: “I've told you, several times, before that you need to digest and understand the released documentation on BR. The area is far too vast, the av cu is far too low and the capex is huge. Keep dreaming though if that gets you through the day.”

Guess we should look at the ‘Released documentation on BR’ Gix is referring to…

“Mining studies by Optimal Mining on the Bushranger Gold-Copper Project, completed in 2022 and 2023, concluded that a minimum production rate of 20 Mtpa, and copper price in excess of US$10,000/tonne, are required to generate a positive Net Present Value ("NPV") from open pit mining of the Racecourse Mineral Resource (refer to RNS 7 March 2023).”

Reference: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/bushranger-ore-pre-concentration-study-results-8t2kdcznuq4rxm2.html

That RNS then goes on specifically to explain the work that has been done to test improved efficiencies/procedural improvements that can build on already released project economics.

So I guess the question is, are those in support of the company and its operations “living in a fantasy land”?

Or are some of the negative posters here just not willing to accept any progressive work the company have done on the project, any of the work that external companies have done on the project on our behalf or any of the macro factors that now massively benefit the projects viability (such as Copper price now being circa $14k/T rather than the $10k/T used in the previous economic studies.)?

Project viability is being spelled out across multiple RNS’s, I’d personally rather base my view on the facts being presented to us by the various professional outfits re the viability of the project over the say so of some of dubious posters on this bb to be honest, but each to their own.

As we established in our lengthy discussions the other day, you can ‘have a differing opinion’ about this.

Your ‘opinion’ can be that Bushranger is not economically viable. You’d be wrong and several studies completed by professional outfits would categorically prove it - but you can still have an opinion.

Just don’t assert your ‘opinion’ as ‘fact’ when the facts clearly disagree with you.

I was asking NtM about their view as I am genuinely curious as to why someone would come up with their own timeframe instead of listening to the timeframe provided via company comms.

Was I not providing a completely fair and level playing field for NtM to explain why their view is as it is?

Not sure how much time you’ve spent project managing Ben, but typically, when a critical path (or timeline) is provided, it’d be a bit weird to arbitrarily decide to add 6 months to it when you’re on the outside of the team. Even weirder to do so with no evidence as to WHY the delay you’re stating will happen.

I was asking an adult question and was looking for an adult answer - stop acting like I’m creating a problem by asking someone to evidence a statement they have made.

I’m not going to be drawn into a stupid, petty argument today.

So how are you deciding the amount of time the projects will be delayed by?

Your time frames don’t seem to come from anywhere in particular, you’re not providing any evidence to indicate that projects are running to your suggested timeline and your view does not appear to be in line with the guidance we are receiving re timelines from the company.

I’m just asking you quite plainly if you have any evidence to support your statement or if you’re just arbitrarily deciding on a different project timeline to what we’re being told by people who are actually involved in the project?

Without wishing to be provocative, I can read mate.

I’m asking, with respect: why you have stated those views when they don’t match up with what we’re being told by the company and if you have any evidence to corroborate what you’re ’guessing’ will happen?

That’s a pretty reasonable question for me to ask.

Also re the timeline you’re suggesting (point 2), you’ve stated first revenue from Antimony within 6 months of Silver king revenue. But then in point 1 you state SK revenue around Sep/Oct…

Using your <6 months time frame, that would put your Antimony production/revenue date circa pre March 27.

Again, that doesn’t match up with the company guidance and I guess I’m just wondering why you’re adding a substantial amount of delay to timeframes that have been set out by the company?

Can you provide any information that corroborates your view re timeline slippage?

NtM, what makes you state there’s been (or likely to be) a “punchy slippage” on timeframes to production/revenue for Silver King?

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

Or is it just a personal view/guess?

Just a bit confused because that’s not what the company has communicated via RNS or via the most recent interview ( https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YC4R8VbMkEs&t=3408s&ra=m @ circa 57mins - 1hr 3mins)

I agree with part of what you’re saying Para, you’re certainly right about the bb being contaminated.

Not convinced you have your finger on the pulse as to who’s responsible for that though…

Eloquent as always Jez, but you should probably calm down a bit, mate. You’re evidently winding yourself up because I’m refusing to bite back at you for your petty, very personal, attacking comments.

Instead I’ll just continue to shine a light on what you’ve said so everyone can see ‘how reasonable’ you are and that ‘I’m definitely the problem’.

Now take a deep breath, and stop being so rude.

Ahh yes Jez, I’m the ‘trouble maker’.

I’m obviously the problem even though you’ve been the one relentlessly hurling a barrage of insults at me in a childlike attempt to get me to be reactive, purely because you’re not capable of a meaningful adult discussion and you’re clearly frustrated that I’m pointing out the flaws / dishonesty in your reasoning.

I suggest you grow up.

Just an FYI Ben: Bushranger is the name of the project that encompasses the various deposits.

‘Racecourse’ and ‘Ascot’ are the names of the deposits that were tested during that drilling campaign.

For what it’s worth, considering at the BR project “further potential remains at several nearby untested exploration targets for the identification of a cluster of similar resources”

I’d argue that there likely is 2mT + at BR, it just needs drilling if a company wants to bring out a tangible, regulated, resource estimate for it.

Reference: https://xtractresources.com/projects-operations/bushranger-copper-gold-project/

Comical that I posted this at 20.12 on the 19th May:

Reference: https://www.lse.co.uk/profiles/jdau/?page=2

“You should probably try to use yet another account to act like it’s on your side and like I’m being the unreasonable one… maybe that’d help make the complete BS you post seem more reasonable?

Oh, maybe you could get a whole group together to talk amongst yourselves about how difficult and how much of a problem poster I am - maybe that would make my logic seem less logical? Or my truth seem less truthful?

Oh, don’t forget the insults … and if all else fails, make a massive song and dance about filtering me to try and encourage others to do the same?”

…and then ‘coincidentally’ that’s almost exactly how it unfolded.

Just remember guys, there “definitely isn’t a group of posters trying to rule the bb or dictate sentiment”.

You might as well have held your hands in the air to identify yourselves.