Member Info for JDAU

I honestly don’t see how you’re twisting this new deal into an almost negative thing yet expecting me not to take issue with it. It’s really pretty simple, more contractors = more production = more gold.
I absolutely don’t agree with you that there will be “some increase” in production over the next 12 months, it’s pretty clear there will be a substantial increase based on the fact we’re clearly currently seeing that increase quarter on quarter at the moment, and that’s without taking into account adding in other contractors.

We’ve always been told higher volume is key due to the nature of Alluvial mining yet now a more beneficial deal to XTR is in place you’re questioning wether that volume will materialise, even if we get another contractor (or two) on board as we’re expecting.
Forgive my cynicism but it almost seems like you’re trying to make today’s RNS a negative thing Andrew.

To me, your view is absolute nonsense, though granted I can’t prove it until it (increased alluvial production) happens, logically for you to speculate it won’t is, in my opinion, completely contradictory to the evidence of production so far, and makes no sense based on what we know about alluvial mining and our current operation.

I’m not the big bad wolf mate, I just defend my investments fiercely when I feel they are unfairly portrayed as it is after all, my money on the line.

Play nice/fair and I’m actually pretty friendly & will almost always try to be helpful by sharing research, answering questions as best I can and posting links to interesting things I find (which I think(?) those that follow this board and know my long term posting would agree with).

As you say, onwards and upwards.

A couple more smaller buys totalling just under 200k through around quarter of an hour ago... they’re trickling in...

I re-read your post and don’t feel much different Andrew, I’m suggesting that given the position of our business, I.e Sino are producing more quarter on quarter and that we’re expecting more alluvial contractors on board any time now, that it’s rather a strange thing to analyse the situation as though our alluvial production isn’t going to increase?

Isn’t it a given that our production profile is set to increase as per pretty much all communication from the company?

Whilst I obviously feel different to you, I’m glad you can at least agree that today’s announcement is a good thing, you have every right to keep your celebrations to yourself until you’re back above your average, I can appreciate that.

Kudos on a balanced post giving credit where credit is due, recommended teacup.

... and no, your eyes do not deceive you ;)

Andrew, alluvial production is increasing quarter on quarter and that’s only with one contractor - we’re awaiting other’s To be announced, i think you’re completely missing the mark if you’re suggesting this will only lead to a benefit after the next two years!

Chunked through half an hour or so ago off the back of hat RNS, good to see!

When you consider it, it makes perfect sense to amend the overarching contract with nexus before organising new deals with new contractors so I’m hardly surprised by any delay, which is pretty much what I was suggesting prior to the RNS being dropped, i’d much rather the most beneficial long term contracts were put in place instead of rushing to get them in place at detriment to the company long term just to appease some people’s impatience.

Thanks for the clarification on where Colin had stated that, as I said, couldn’t remember off the top of my head so the reference is much appreciated.

Interesting Re Beaufort, I’m still not pinning any hopes on that and will instead be focusing on our operational progression, though it’s interesting nevertheless, especially the figures across the sector.

Thanks for some thought provoking points H50!

C’mon all you “shareholders”, isn’t this the time to be celebrating Cb’s negotiating success?
You all have so much to say, so often on the negative side regarding CB... doesn’t this negotiation deserve a little congratulations?

I for one welcome more favourable terms on our alluvials, going from a 40-60% split to a 50-50% split is great moving forwards, especially when we consider other contractors are due to come on board in the near future and that the result of this means we get a greater share of future gold sold - which will of course include the gold we’ve been producing but not selling for the past few quarters.

You’ve all gone rather quiet after this RNS compared to your usual occupation of the board?

How do I work what out?
I’m sorry Jezzoo, you’ve completely lost me - I’m not sure what you’re getting at?

Is that aimed at me Jezzoo?
I’m not sure what you’re insinuating?

Probably also worth noting that the frugal selling of gold produced to this point (i.e only selling what we need to to cover costs) will now benefit us even more as we’ll be getting 50% instead of 40% of future gold sales - I.e we just got 50% of the stockpiled gold instead of 40%.

Sterling move in my opinion.

Good work negotiating from CB, a more favourable alluvial term template moving forward, prior to getting new contractors signed up.

Bravo CB, bravo.

How about I ask you lot a couple of questions...

What are your views on our increasing production profile and decreasing costs per ounce based solely on Sino’s alluvial work?
Are you happy knowing that we’re not selling all gold produced and subsequently have a “rainy day” fund building month on month?
Seeing what Sino are capable of, are you confident in XTR knowing that more contractors will soon be working the alluvials for us AND knowing that our hard rock production is due to start Q1 next year?

Don’t all rush to answer at once..

Against my better judgement based on past experience I’ll give you (once again) the benefit of the doubt LittleWing and give you a genuine answer to your question.

“As previously announced on 25 June 2018, Moz Gold had halted production on the Western Half and Xtract continues to review new contractor proposals and expects to be able to announcement a new appointment shortly.“

Ref: RNS (16th July) http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=XTR&ArticleCode=52tpsucv&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Concession_Alluvial_Gold_Quarterly_Update

I have a feeling something was stated by Bird about end of August (I think?- but happy to be corrected if anyone can post a reference?) on a podcast or video or something but without rewatching/listening to them I can’t remember off the top of my head.

I can understand that may seem like a missed deadline to some, but it’s getting a contractor on board - potentially for the long haul, isn’t it better to get a decent deal in place than to rush it and end up either with a poor deal or poor contractor?

To be honest I never assumed there was a specific date by which we would have another contractor signed up, just that one was on the way and will be announced in due course... whilst Sino are keeping us afloat and with Omnia Hard rock progression on the way I don’t really see the rush.

Teacup, let me make something clear, I say things as I see them.

If someone spends every day on this bb claiming to be a shareholder but smack talking the company, often without getting the facts straight, then I don’t believe that person is telling the truth about being a shareholder - because quite frankly it would be stupid and self punitive (financially) to do so.

Hence I call BS.

Very clever Jezzoo, you seem to have given me two options: “Either you are on site or you have some kind of access to company day to day dealings that the rest of us don't have.” both of which would suggest insider trading...

You did however forget to include a third option, which is:
That I can read, digest and most importantly understand what is written in the RNS’s, namely because I’m not a cretin.
For instance, when most (surprise surprise it was the group I tend to take issue with) were bleating on about cash levels dwindling or lack of profitability of the alluvials upon the last RNS, I actually had to point out that explorator clearly aren’t selling all the gold being produced (which again, mostly fell on deaf ears) and thus to look at only the cash figures of “cost of production” and “profit from sale” was missing a pretty key figure in telling the whole story, which was of course paying attention to the “stock level”, I.e ounces of gold produced but not sold.
Granted it wasn’t there in black and white but anyone with half a brain, as I stated at the time, should be capable of basic analysis which would have told them that we’re actually stockpiling gold.

As I said, I don’t claim to have inside information, I do however claim to be capable of reading RNS’s and understanding them, seemingly better than most posters here, although I theorise that their “lack of understanding” is often intentional in order to post negative matter about the company.

As I’ve said many, many times before: happy to engage in debate, not happy for people to barefaced lie about the company, or drive a purely negative agenda in spite of company progression - which for the record, I’ve been witnessing daily for longer than I care to remember.

Anyone who has a holding here is negatively impacted by such bile being spewed for which the cynic in me tells me that those that repetitively post damaging statements about the company (which are usually BS) cannot in fact be holders.

It’s pretty simple logic when you consider it.

*their

Teacup, are you taking the absolute Mickey?
Me the one “going on” or being repetitive?!?

What about the band of Merry morons who post umpteen times a day about “how bad XTR is” or “CB must go” or the same ol’ BS I read here every day.

I’ll stop criticising other posters on there inability to understand the facts when they stop posting things that aren’t true!