Member Info for JDAU

We’ve just had a great RNS which puts the contractor we know to be successful come rain or shine in charge of our alluvial operation as a whole, it’ll bring in a decent amount more revenue in with the addition of another 200 Tph plant in Feb and is likely to be the start of a train of more positive news.

Seems the same ol’ faces are here pushing the negative agenda regardless of positive moves by the company.

“The Board of Xtract Resources Plc ("Xtract" or the "Company") is pleased to announce that the Company's wholly-owned Mozambican subsidiary, Explorator Limitada ("Explorator") has concluded an additional mining contractor agreement ("Mining Contractor Agreement" or "Agreement") with Huafei Gold Resources Co Limitada (formerly Sino Minerals Investment Company Limited) ("Contract Miner") for the exploitation of alluvial gold deposits at Manica at its Manica mining concession in Mozambique.”

“An entry fee to be paid to the Company: Initial US$150,000 to be paid on the date of the Agreement, and the remaining US$200,000 to be recovered through future alluvial gold production”

“Agreement provides for Explorator to be entitled to retain net percentage of the gold mined (after settlement by Explorator of the Mining Production Tax) of 22% until the entry fee has been settled in full, and 20% thereafter”

“The Agreement includes performance targets whereby the Contract Miner from 1 February 2019 will be required to have 2 fully operational plants with a minimum throughput of 200 tonnes per hour on a consistent 24 hours per day basis”

Ref: http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=krapv7q5&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Gold_Alluvial_Mining_Contractor_Agreement

Indeed Babbler, solid RNS: http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=krapv7q5&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Gold_Alluvial_Mining_Contractor_Agreement

“The total amount of gold produced from the Mining Concession Area, less the percentage Mining Production Tax and gold paid the Contract Miners, ("Net Gold Production"), will now be shared equally the Company and Nexus.”
Reference: http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=0ohztuh2&ArticleHeadline=Alluvial_Collaboration_Agreement_terms_amended

“Any hard rock occurrences that meet the agreed target hurdle rate of return of 25% will be mined and the benefits shared on a 50:50 basis.”
Reference: http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=sghhkqgd&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Hard_Rock_Collaboration_Agreement

News on FB to follow...

Is it me that’s the problem though?

Because as far as I’m concerned, you not understanding how a royalty based contract works seems to be the problem.
That, and you thinking that a different CEO might inexplicably affect our elected partner companies gold processing ability.

We don’t need to pay for a full time CEO as the way our deals are structured don’t leave any room for said CEO to impact operations, because once again, the operations are run by other companies.

It’s a pretty simple business model which you seem to be failing to grasp.

...because you keep repeating the point that a different CEO would somehow effect the outcome of operations.
Operations that are run/managed by other companies that we take a cut of due to deals put in place by CB - deals which allow XTR to benefit from owning the asset without running the operation.

What are you not understanding?

Happy for you to prove me wrong, though the last several campaigns ‘the group’ has initiated to achieve exactly the same goal has amounted to sweet FA other than you all clogging up the bb with a negative agenda stating you’re doing as much, which as per my previous point, is in fact the goal of your posting.

It’s transparent.

Ps. I won’t be “acting surprised”, I’ll be actively opposing you.

It likely appears that way because so many of you consistently demonstrate a lack of understanding of the company and it’s operations via your posts...

The most recent “oust CB and bring in a ceo” being a perfect example of this.

Again, bringing in another CEO would do very little other than increase company cash drain to have someone watching over the royalty based deals that CB set up.

I feel like I keep repeating myself, but here goes: OTHER COMPANIES ARE RUNNING THE OPERATIONS.

Why don’t you give Andrew a shout, he turned up out of the blue a while ago with 10m shares that “definitely exist”.

There you go, nearly there, considering you also have LittleWing, Jezzo, Gixxer et al you must nearly be at your target, no?

So either action it, or don’t.
I’d suggest the latter is the more likely due to point B) of my previous post.

“Call it hot air, or an agenda all you like, when we get the 5%, that illusion your seeing could become a reality.”

It’s hot air, it’s an agenda, and it won’t happen because (IMO) :

A) it’s a stupid idea which linchpins on the majority of you not understanding how our business operates.
B) Because those of you driving the agenda don’t actually own any shares, you’re simply bashing the stock as hard as you can go.

I can’t see why else such an organised group who clearly know the ins and outs (and have the share capital clout to do so) wouldn’t have already brought this to fruition... unless you just want to keep talking about it on the bb to make damn sure confidence in CB is being knocked daily...?

Your post sounds a lot like hot air produced to suit the agenda of the moment...

New CEO = significant cash drain & CB’s deals bring in the royalty payments
(Notice anything wrong with the above?)

There’s very little to ‘manage’ as other companies are the operating party... once again, read the RNS’s and please, please just try to understand that as far as our current deals are structured:
OTHER COMPANIES ARE RUNNING THE OPERATIONS

You lot sure seem to keep recycling this posting agenda about getting rid of CB, is it simply the most effective way you could come up with for knocking confidence in CB/XTR?

It’s getting really boring reading the same post, re-worded, written by each of you...

Once again, bringing in someone else as a CEO would achieve very little bar adding a significant cash drain on the business. Deals are in place, companies are processing material and timelines are being met....

As an observation, Interesting you choose to try and knock confidence (again) just prior to news surrounding our hard rock project(s) and Q4 results...

To be frank, I don't care that you ‘don’t care who doesn't agree’ - you’re wrong, you lot have been pushing this negative agenda for months with very little substance other than a large volume of negative posts coming from multiple (IMO) stooge accounts.

Change the record, or at least come up with something more sensible to say than “let’s pay a new ceo a vast some of money to sit around and watch CB’s deals make money for the company” - as I’ve said to other posters before:
If you don’t understand how our current deals (made by CB) are laid out, their timescales and why that means we don’t need to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to have someone running the show our end, you need to re-read the RNS’s.

Gold price isn’t diving... we’re at $1288 / Oz
https://goldprice.org

It’s currenty over $20 above the price our DFS is based on...
http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=yb7wqzq3&ArticleHeadline=Definitive_Feasibility_Study

LittleWing, I completely disagree, the most recent deals that have been negotiated by Colin Bird on behalf of Xtract completely contradict what you are stating about a lack of focus and/or that Colin is not focussing on creating shareholder value.

Both of these deals clearly demonstrate how the projects we are progressing with will translate into significant value to XTR and subsequently, the shareholders:

“The total amount of gold produced from the Mining Concession Area, less the percentage Mining Production Tax and gold paid the Contract Miners, ("Net Gold Production"), will now be shared equally the Company and Nexus.”
Reference: http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=0ohztuh2&ArticleHeadline=Alluvial_Collaboration_Agreement_terms_amended

“Any hard rock occurrences that meet the agreed target hurdle rate of return of 25% will be mined and the benefits shared on a 50:50 basis.”
Reference: http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=sghhkqgd&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Hard_Rock_Collaboration_Agreement

It certainly comes across as though you don’t understand how the deals XTR have made are structured.

‘tis the season where differences matter not, Merry Christmas to you too LittleWing!

No LittleWing, I just don’t have time for people who pretend to know what they’re talking about, when time and time again they demonstrate just how clueless they are ;)

Ps, if I’m honest LittleWing, it’s my view that anyone who:

- Predicts our potential revenue by doing workings using cooking Oz’s instead of Troy ounces
- Works out a prospective valuation of a company by completely ignoring industry standard ebitda calculations and instead opts for a “I just think that’s what it should be”
- Works out our potential revenue based on grades which they’re guessing when the information is already available
- Thinks I’m Colin Bird just because I’m positive about the company
- Claims to understand how our operations are interlinked yet completely overlooks the reasoning behind why we have certain deals structured a certain way (I.e any money for moving the alluvials out the way of our hard rock is a good thing, we’d be paying for it otherwise)
- Thinks a 50-50 split on JV’s we don’t have to put a bucket load of cash up front for us a bad deal
- etc etc

PROBABLY is a cretin.

Yes LW, it was you I was talking to about mcap considering you put a figure of 3pps on the table as what you’d like to see (for starters), that mcap roughly equates to 3pps in case you hadn’t realised...

I take your point re being concerned about “what’s left for shareholders”, so with that in mind, what specifically is your problem with the deals as they are currently structured?

Our agreement with Omnia is that “Any hard rock occurrences that meet the agreed target hurdle rate of return of 25% will be mined and the benefits shared on a 50:50 basis.”
(Ref: http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=sghhkqgd&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Hard_Rock_Collaboration_Agreement )

Our alluvial JV with nexus is:
“The total amount of gold produced from the Mining Concession Area, less the percentage Mining Production Tax and gold paid the Contract Miners, ("Net Gold Production"), will now be shared equally the Company and Nexus.“
Ref: http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=0ohztuh2&ArticleHeadline=Alluvial_Collaboration_Agreement_terms_amended

You wrote: “The total size of the Manica cake has not been in question... but rather the slice left for XTR shareholders at the end of Birds deals is.”

My issue with this, is that you (and others) keep repeating this like we don’t already know ‘our cut’ from different projects in an effort to knock confidence in the company, granted we’re still waiting for figures on Fairbride which is the main event, but as far as alluvials and other hard rock is concerned, we already have these numbers... so quite how you can not be confident in them when they’ve improved through CB’s renegotiation is beyond me.

To me, those deals certainly seem favourable to XTR and completely contrary to what you’re suggesting re there being nothing left for shareholders after deals are (in your view) structured to benefit 3rd parties.
I’d argue that of course those deals in some way will benefit 3rd parties, they are the ones doing most of the work whilst we sit back and take a cut...

If it’s delivery of those numbers you’re waiting for in order to feel more confident in CB and XTR, that’s fair enough, however you don’t make money on a stock market (I.e betting on speculative gains) by waiting for them to happen, you can’t go back in time and invest prior to the market attributing value, it’s using a bit of foresight that makes you that buck.

Ok, so for a start you want to see an Mcap it circa £10.5m.

Considering what we’re expecting news on/expecting to start early next year, are you suggesting that in your opinion that figure is unobtainable?