Member Info for Joeman1

If the economic model shows say an NPV of 500million requiring a POC of say $9500/te, then the saleability of that will depend on the potential purchasers idea of what the average price will be once in production.....

To be able to declare a decision to mine though, I wonder what NPV and IRR would be considered suitably robust...... and with all these expert predictions of YEARS of deficit and POC >$10K/te, what will be an acceptable POC basis.

I'm guessing that figures used in PFRs and DFRs in the last couple of years might be quickly becoming out of date.

Feels like a bit of a moving target

The findings of the DFS/Technical Report are laid out in the RNS of the 21st April this year. The next issue will be another DFS that includes more detail on the Tioxide portion of the ore as this part wasn't completed to a DFS level at the time.

As of now I'm not sure that that has been completed. If it has I'd agree, it should be issued without delay.

Anyway..... would be nice to have an end of year statement

I think it must surely be possible to accept the potential benefit of the new JV on the basis of the small investment, local processing and near term cash flow......... without sticking our heads in the sand wrt Kalengwa. (I'm still waiting for something official regarding the reality at Eureka).

At the minimum the hope has to be that it is another bolster to cash flow and exploration funding, with the potential to open up something more interesting..... but if it is just the first it will still have been a positive investment.

Colin said in that last interview that website pictures would paint the picture of Fairbride operations.

I would also suest the website is tidied up to to remove Kalengwa and perhaps outline the narrative on Eureka. That one has been kicked down the road too often.... at least we need to see if it is still a can ....

Couple of difficult questions raised there. On the whole im positive.

Might add a little more if the funds allow

Zaphod,

Have yourself a pan galactic gargle blaster and im sure you will have a rosy outlook too ??

They are stating Investment decision Q1/Q2 next year.... only a few steps left of the current plan.... surely they cant stretch it out further than now promised.

GLA

Howezap... I believe 8% might be the figure you can reverse calculate once the economics have been bottomed out, when you have a project with amazing economics and low CAPEX and risk and therefore an NPV calculated compared to the resource in ground is extremely attractive.... and the low risk means that the purchaser will pay a high % of NPV to secure the project.

When using in-ground resource value as the basis for estimating a sale price then it seems foolhardy to use a % that would be attributed to only the best opportunities that anyone is liable to find.

In particular for Bushranger our positives are jurisdiction, access to utilities and distance from large population centres.... but we know at the least that the high CAPEX represents a risk and any sensible investor will recognise the risk associated with being likely tied to a relatively high (although widely predicted) copper price.

I dont think 8% should even be mentioned at this stage .... im pointing out its overly rampy.

Dani,
We are going to have to drop the notion of 8% of value in ground....before there has been any economic assessment. .... particularly as it stems from an off the cuff comment made by Colin.

Seems more of a consensus to use something lower than 3% unless the NPV assessment comes back with fireworks attached.

Suggesting 8% at this stage just makes you sound overly rampy.

Andrew.... you are at the top of the list based on sheer perseverance, dedication.....and time spent.... Wear the badge with pride

There is an alternative to coal in steel production. There are coal free steel works around the world already..... just not very many....
But
There are still coal fired ones being built in the world and it will be decades to phase out the existing plants so I wouldn't be too worried about sticking more money in Ben's Creek.

I'm guessing we won't be burning coal in 50 years..... I might be in the ground making some new stuff by then

Bizzy,
The Manica revenue does more than its numerical value to the company, because it facilitates adding value through exploration without the normal risk of dilution that we have from most explorers.
Utilising the NPV value to the company sets a minimum, as long as the money is being employed in good exploration....
So I think it is good to use it to demonstrate company value.

Well deserved rise following on from a good interview, with a very strong positive message.

If it had gone down following that interview, I'd have been throwing hands .... lol

Nobody has shown it isn't economical (and the most recent interview Colin says they already know they have Decision to Mine). What has been demonstrated is that a proportion of the resource isn't due to the outcomes of the drilling but due to the shifted cut-off.

The only way forward for Xtract is the direction they are going..... publish the mining plan when they receive it and start the negotiation with AA ir wider market.

The only deviation (imo) that this discussion warrants would be a technical presentation with the team...... thats if they want to address the shareprice being below current asset value.... as that dip has been related to Bushranger and more specifically, non expert interpretation of Racecourse results published to date.

To quote Yazz...... the only way is up baby

Steve was an investor in XTR until last week.

And typically a good contributor to any discussions.

If the mine has to target just the higher grade crown and has to achieve a reasonable NPV by the time that is processed, I think the plant size would need to reduce to reduce CAPEX....

I respect Steve and his posts (also can't argue with his day job), but I would like to see the economic model too...

I do agree Andrew, but I think this level of impact from Steve's info warrants an official response from the company..... and not just an interview.

An RNS'd clarification ..... if not a full rebuttal....
And a clear timeframe for the delivery of the study.

LW,

You re missing my point. I don't forsee us retaining 20%... for me it is going to be a complete sale . I'm just puzzled when people say, where are we going to get the money to fund 20% of the CAPEX?..... we will have just been paid for the other 80%, our MC would be high enough to raise easily and as the CAPEX will be against plant we would be able to raise through debt as well.......

Colin has made so much noise about not doing a JV for this, so this is just an academic discussion. I quite like the idea of that 20% being converted into a royalty stream as it would be a good longer term underpinning of the shareprice once we have had a special dividend and the company is back to exploring.....

If we sold the 80% to AA for 200million we would then have the funds to pay our share of 1billion CAPEX.... not sure what I'm missing here.

But it is academic as I think it will be a total sale 100%.