Member Info for JDAU

Well done on clearly demonstrating an absolute lack of knowledge of literally anything that’s going on here if that’s your opinion.

Not sure why you’d say that In response to the comment: “Some updates must be due shortly, noted some larger buys appearing.” From H50. Note how nothing was said about when those larger buys appeared, just that the poster has observed some appearing, I’m not sure why you’re refusing to count those buys yesterday... seems like a rather hollow thing to do for no reason other than to try to make you appear right when you are in fact wrong. H50’s point stands, big buys have been appearing recently.

1m - £10,000 811,066 - £7,989 475,619 - £4,994 I’d suggest they are pretty reasonable sized buys, the 1m share purchase equals just over a quarter of a % of the company, pretty big buy in my book. http://m.lse.co.uk/markets/shareprice/trades.asp?share=XTR

If that’s your opinion batfink then I’m not going to try to sway it, suffice to say that Colin does a good job of addressing the question you’re asking about what’s going on/what phase we’re in etc in that podcast between 9.49mins-10.10mins. Mentions (amongst other things) crop extension of circa 200m (upto 450m) and the fact that samples have been sent away for analysis. If you believe him or not is up to you, but the information is out there.

Listen to the latest podcast, CB had plenty to say. https://www.**********.co.uk/company/XTR/multimedia/

Why are you picking on the singular thing that can be construed as negative when actually, put in context it is simply saying that if we solely elect not to pursue a project then the data used to come to that conclusion will be shared (instead of us just saying, no thanks!). “Should the Company at its sole election elect not to continue then all information generated will be supplied to Omnia together with the associated raw data.” http://www.lse.co.uk/regulatory-news-article.asp?ArticleCode=sghhkqgd&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Hard_Rock_Collaboration_Agreement

Omnia hard rock collab agreement is separate from Omnia alluvial collab agreement.

I think this is what you were looking for batfink: “Phase 3 - Drilling It is envisaged that drilling will be carried will only be carried out in order to identify and confirm mining targets. If the projects are considered suitable for progressing at the Company's sole election then the parties will agree to the following programme of building a suitable geological model. The initial budget shall not exceed US$100,000 split equally between the Company and Omnia. Should the results of this modelling and financial study indicate a project with an internal rate of return of more than 25% then the parties will agree to advance the project to development. This phase to be completed by no later than 15 August 2018. Should the Company at its sole election elect not to continue then all information generated will be supplied to Omnia together with the associated raw data.” Ref: http://www.lse.co.uk/regulatory-news-article.asp?ArticleCode=sghhkqgd&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Hard_Rock_Collaboration_Agreement FYI my interpretation of this isn’t that we should be expecting news on the 15th, just that this milestone should be reached and we should expect an update on this in the weeks to come...

I answer most questions clearly and tend to add references to relevant RNS’s for any observations I make about the company so a reader can see I’m not talking out of my behind. Shame the same can’t be said for yourself who happily posts all sort of codswallop with seemingly no thought about what to say if challenged (fairly) other than simply changing the subject to something else you can add a negative spin to. I think I’m done with this conversation for the evening, it’s actually painful having to try and discuss business with someone who has no interest in anything being said other than spreading misinformation & negativity. The information you’re incorrectly commenting on is all out there in the public domain, I’ve posted links so people can clearly see you’re talking BS. Feel free to keep posting lies and making yourself look even more ridiculous when the facts can be pretty easily demonstrated by me copying and pasting a link.

Respectfully I disagree, LittleWing often jumps the gun and posts negative inaccuracies, I’ve spent more than enough time over the years having to correct said poster as otherwise the lies seem to go unchecked. https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20141112/pdf/42tnw9z3g4bblx.pdf This was little wings original post: “Auroch only paid 1m for Manica. Our board in their pursuit of shareholder value saw fit to pay them 18m a short while later. It might have been a snip at 1m. Auroch must have been laughing all the way to the bank. The SP is moving evr more downwards to maybe reflect a more reasonable valuation for Manica. We have all been well and truly done here.“ I had a problem with that as it was clearly incorrect/basically a lie (both on the count of cash consideration/share issue for both transactions between PAF/AOU & AOU/XTR) and surprise surprise, the “mistakes” made by LW portrayed the deal to be far worse than it actually was. Never would have seen that coming. LW could very well have tried to justify it, as you have, but he didn’t, he just kept posting negative, incorrect statements. It is clear from the interactions I often have with this poster that they are pretty clueless and intent on negative posting In spite of any evidence. Not too sure why you’re leaping to LW’s defence if I’m honest, LW clearly wouldve explained if that was in fact his understanding of the deal, but he didn’t, because he doesn’t understand and is simply just bashing. Imo the negative agenda on this bb is absolutely transparent.

Little wing... you’re clearly not reading and/or understanding properly. What do you think the 25m shares issue as part of the purchase price Aou paid to PAF was worth? I’ll give you a hint, $2m in cash + 25m shares in AOU when the share price was circa 0.3 per share does not equal a $2m total purchase price. So not only have you got the cash amount completely wrong (and don’t seem to care about a circa $1m discrepancy), you also don’t seem to understand the giving of equity as part of a deal. So in fact, yes, it does matter that your comprehension of the figures is poor as your posts don’t even remotely reflect the deal that you’re dissing. FYI, we also didn’t pay $12m cash, we gave part cash, part equity as per the previous deal between Aou & Paf. So basically, you couldn’t be more far from the truth with your posts in which you deem it fit to claim the deal was a rip off whereby we just gave Auroch a shed load of cash for something they bought for peanuts and didn’t do anything to to add value. On balance, I suppose you don’t understand it properly so you deserve the right to read into it properly and retract your statement(s).

LittleWing, your comment: “My mistake I hold my hands up lol yes we paid 12m to Auroch for Manica not the 18m I earlier said. The truth is we paid 12m to Auroch wh paid 1m for it.” How are you still getting this wrong when I have put it on a plate for you? “The truth is we paid 12m to Auroch wh paid 1m for it.” - except, that’s not “the truth” is it, Auroch, as I explained below, didn’t pay 1m for it, the deal was structured as per my previous post. If you’d be so kind as to post your reference for where you can see a company release stating Aou (Auroch) paid 1m for the asset, that’d sure clear up this argument. At this point, you are (in my opinion) intentionally posting lies to make the situation seem far more dire than it is. You’re now trying to change the subject as you’re clearly fighting a losing battle. I have actually shown you the news release stating the particulars of the acquisition whilst your still posting “they only paid 1m” in the face of everything you’re being shown. We can move onto discussing Moz once you’ve either posted your sources, or apologised for being wrong, repetitively posting something which is an outright lie and retracted your clearly incorrect statement.

Ps. You might want to look at that 18m figure you’re citing too- http://www.lse.co.uk/regulatory-news-article.asp?ArticleCode=0ghjkuc8&ArticleHeadline=Manica_Acquisition__Revised_Terms_Agreed Think you’re getting confused with how much we were going to SELL Manica for (before we decided not to) not how much we paid for it.

Not sure where you’re getting your information from (again) little wing, but you’re wrong. Auroch didn’t “only pay 1m for Manica”. The initial deal was $2m cash and 25m shares in Aou which was restructured a few times including a share buy back as you can see if you look through Auroch’s 2013/14/15 history, the initial deal is laid out in the link below: https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20120829/pdf/428bdd3fs6jy5b.pdf They (Auo) then embarked on a huge drilling campaign over a couple of years taking the project from concept to closer to a proven resource- I’ve posted notes on these drills and their findings previously but if anyone is struggling to find info on them I can dig them out again. We then paid a value added price as Auroch had added value, pretty simple really. Stop acting like we paid 18m for something which was bought the year before for 1m with little being done to add any value in that time gap as that couldn’t be further from the truth. All of the information is still there in the Asx announcements when you research Auroch, in my opinion you are (once again) trying to mislead people with flippant statements which aren’t actually grounded in reality. Unless of course you’d like to cite your reference point for this 1m they paid for it? (And then I suppose you’d have to just act like their mammoth drilling/metallurgical study campaign didn’t happen if you want to support your view that we got ripped off)...

Quick, quick LittleWing, find something else to put some negative focus on in an attempt to distract from you clearly being wrong on so many levels about so much of this business. You barely have a clue about our operation and yet you are here pretty much daily (more than actual holders) spouting absolute trash.

We probably shouldn’t mention the photos of the omnia hard rock plants though, the ones that we’re most likely going to be using as a result of our hard rock collab agreement... Or the fact that we’re currently waiting sample results on hard rock targets we’re hoping to fast track with Omnia... Or the fact that one contractor is currently keeping us afloat with more contracts waiting to be announced... Or the fact that we have Fair Bride sat DFS’d waiting for a deal to be announced on (which you should know, if you’ve been following the story, we’re not in a rush to progress as we’re trying to get the most out of the deal which will only happen once we’re making good cash flow/able to negotiate from a position of strength). Never mind all that though eh Little wing, it’d be a shame for any of the facts to get in the way of a bashers story telling.

Not being set up to process fine gold is quite different from it “not working”. I’d suggest you go and learn the basics about gold processing LW before you jump to your (incorrect) conclusions. They do make you appear to be lacking in even basic knowledge on the subject.

Are you referring to the photo captioned: “Yellow plant loaded at Kimberley for Manica”? Because you might want to read that caption again and consider what it is telling you...

“What I would like to see, and think it would have a positive effect on the market, is a photo of CB with a spade digging manica.....you know, the normal prospecting shot with Colin getting excited by finding a speck of gold in his pan.” https://www.xtractresources.com/media.htm

...well this is awkward... You realise that in the post where I highlighted your post history, I also linked it? - as I do with pretty much anything I post so that readers can in fact see the information at source. You’d know that if you: A) knew of my penchant for referencing B) opened your eyes