Member Info for Joeman1

Thanks gixxer. So a couple of months to go to production..... Q2 for revenue.... still a slip but not so bad.

You did well there George. Didnt get hammered by the spread.

Just think of all the future tax you just saved for a massive loss of 0.03p per share.

The algo for declaring a buy or a sell is so often wrong that it sometimes feels like astrology.... I believe it when it fits my narrative..... "2022 is going to be a very prosperous year for Cancers"

Maybe you all got him wrong.... maybe he was ramping XTR.... If the value of the sale of Prospect Ore is 47million, it means that the sale price of Racecourse/Ascot etal must be around 1.7billion....

Id say Porvenireal is a 'triffic ramper.

My guess (wrt XTR) ..... earlier on, each hole was a bigger material change for Racecourse in terms of confirming an extension of strike and resource or grades.... as we move on towards the 2mt, each incremental hole is less of an impact to the overall and therefore best to be reported with the model.

Don't know how that argument holds water for Ascot, but I suppose the Ascot holes haven't been so long drilled and therefore the delay in assay results is easily understood in terms of the holidays and general workload of Labs.

Good interviews posted. My feeling with the new Non-Exec is that we are getting exactly what it says on the tin. Someone with experience and drive in commercialization of products in the consumer commodity sectors.

Hopefully we should start to see fruits being borne.

Good Results = early release......Not so good Results = might take an extra month to make it into an RNS/

Never a truer sentiment expressed in my opinion. Im hopeful that it is good news .... and that is buoyed by the rumours on the grapevine that there will be very good news being released in the next couple of weeks. Im thinking it will be good news on income.

Cygnus, my post was in response to your "am I being naive" post..... not the later one. we are obviously typing at the same time. The side effect of XTRs positive and exciting position..... typing long responses on LSE Chatboards on a sunday. lol

Hi Cygnus,

Im afraid that sounds a bit too easy.... but following your thought process I could see a scenario where AA or another party agree up front a framework of value for the conclusion of any current drilling or exploration as an add on to the sale of Racecourse (first refusal but with a value framework agreed upfront). I think that such a scenario would be plausible because they would prefer not to have a competitor 1km down the road.

I know others have different views, but this is the reason that I think it would be ideal for us to plan and implement as a minimum a 6 month drilling program. Effectively giving us more leverage for the Ascot and other potential local porphyry with AA..... and if at the end of 6 months AA fail to agree a sale with us, we will be in the driving seat with a tested bigger resource and much more defined value to go to the open market.

The only risk to us imo is the potential for some of the Ascot drilling to fail to meet expectations, or maybe this 3rd porphyry not to be realised. Is this risk small? The technical team will know best in this, but certainly the wording used for Ascot would suggest that at least Ascot has a high probability of success.

Thats my opinion/hope of where we go over the next 6 months. Im sure we will get a better idea of the nuts and bolts of the plan soon.

Plenty of good news coming shortly 3cardbrag.... fully expecting a rush of results.

Good Spot Leosayer.... So basically after the definition of the guidelines, he would have likely been going shortly anyway.

Giving him the opportunity to do so on his own steam will look better on his CV.

Maybe there will be a more appropriate appointment soon, to coincide with the plan to mine at Eureka. ..... or maybe a negotiating Hard Hitter to squeeze best value out of AA (or another).

Im looking forward to this Good News that we are expecting in the next couple of weeks.

Ivans.... they didnt change the broker completely of their own choice.....

The individual handling their account changed the broker they were representing and Jangada have decided to stick with the account manager.

That took me by surprise. in a good way

MagP,

I havent seen the documentation, but if you want to know where the details on how the AA buy back will progress, with associated timescales, watch the Investor Evening Video from a few months ago. Colin takes the opportunity to outline the steps and discuss the basis of value.

The general impression you get from his description is that nobody, including XTR are able to swing the lead once either of the official gates are passed (2mt Contained copper or a decision to mine).

I agree Xeiger... we are due an RNS anyway as it sounds like there wasn't too much downtime over christmas for the team. Unless I picked it up wrong, the drill was been turning on additional holes while Colin was doing the interview.

So maybe we will get some more information in an RNS this week.

I wont argue with you there howezap.

and in the following minute 12-13minutes he is still talking about 2 more porphyrys (Ascot plus one) and sinking boreholes to show this....
He also states that these are all in the Anglo Agreement.... that has been another point of discussion over the last few months

I heard it as - sink some Ascot holes to get reference points to plan a drilling program.

So I think there will be a fair few holes sunk in Ascot in the first 6 months of 2022..... just not as many as already completed in Racecourse. At least that's the way I read it (around about 12minutes in).

6million to XTR per annum is what I understood IWTO. It was the 25 years I didn't follow..... but im thinking now that you were suggesting we would need 25 years to support an MC above 100million if we were based on Manica alone. I agree with that.
We obviously don't have 25 years in the ground without further exploration.

That is a highly selective list...... XTR went from below 2p to finish around 5.5p in the same period .... so more than the highest on that list. No qualification to why this band of companies are considered over others.
Highly misleading without the supporting qualification criteria.