We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Absolutely Gordie....
What's funny is Manica header has been updated to show the new plant, but the photo gallery still shows the plant in bits just delivered to site. Real opportunity missed to promote this story and highlight the improving cash position of XTR.
Kalengwa is still listed as a major project and no update on Eureka or any of the other bigger projects... And Bushranger being pointed to April 2020 project presentation isnt good enough considering that all the work has gone in since then.
If they are going to operate a number of smaller scale existing mines then these could do with their own subfolder, updated on an annual basis as a minimum.
The cost of contracting a company to do this, to keep the page up to date will be relatively inexpensive.
Yes.... a producing plant more than 10 years in the making..... at least it is MMP and XTR that finally benefit from this in the end... now the plant is up and running the opportunity is there to exploit what is available within the permit..... instead of just talking about it.
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I'm guessing that figures used in PFRs and DFRs in the last couple of years might be quickly becoming out of date.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
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.
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.
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.