Member Info for picax

A nice update showing good growth and a bright future. A lot of derisking has happened in the last 6 months and looking forward to the next 6 for increased production, more trains and a higher metcoal price.

To answer "whats not to like" seriously: From an LTH perspective, the standard sites like stockopedia and simplywallst give this a failing grade. From a trading perspective, tradingview and others rate this as garbage due to being under most moving averages and with awful momentum. Add that there are a wide variety of pretty crazy opportunities in small caps and/or miners due to indiscriminate sell-offs over the last year.

For those who have read the RNSs and punched in the numbers themselves rather than looking at outdated balance sheets, imo this is an incredible opportunity to multibag inside a year from now. But if most people thought that, it wouldn't be where it is right now. Catch 22 of value investing.

Primary consumer of iron ore is expecting to significantly increase demand next year - UFO looking to begin production of iron ore next year. What am I missing? Yes it is directly connected.

AIM is dominated by traders anyway, but the bear market hasn't helped. People are flipping solid gold stocks for 15% gains when they are worth 5-10x their MCap. Truly a bananas market we're in, and no telling when the trader caravan will trundle through to pump and dump a share. There was a big craze for lithium stocks like 2 weeks ago that went away as fast as it arrived, and we've seen a few of those type events. The market is meant to be forward looking and yet here we are sitting on a high expectation of 40% divi next year (with metcoal expected to bounce up and production still ramping). Most people don't want to hold for 6 months even. Go figure.

Jumpstreet is a 1 day old account with 9 posts, with his first being a thread starter called "Check Steve4077 for pump & dump", only on this BB. Having read through Steve's calcs I don't see anywhere he is saying there is 74 kt Cu or is ever multiplying by the cut off. Both these statements are just laughable. I have a bad feeling that Steve is correct that this is Kevin, and that would just compound the embarrassment of this whole debacle. The MM / escalation threats really are low when you can't dispute anything he has said.

Just had a listen to the podcast and couldn't believe my ears. Independent experts may have conducted the study and modelling but it is on XTR to word and release the information which seems very misleading if Steve's calculations are correct. There was a lot of complicated stuff in the background but the JORC comparison is maths for 10 year olds and is in the RNSs. Like a lot of the comments on this BB there's a lot of projection, getting up in arms, "how dare he" sort of comments which just seem juvenile and defensive. To read from Steve that they're going to escalate this when I've heard Colin say 1.1 Mt Cu about 10 times in 2 podcasts is just laughable. The previous podcast bears a listen if you want to hear how impartial Colin is "just waiting for the experts". Just barmy behaviour.

I see, thanks. Yes all the CuEq / cut-off changing did my head in, which is why I tried but ended up not verifying your prior calculations. In any case I think all this goalpost changing by releasing incomparable numbers by CB does smell a bit fishy, and at the very least, if the new CuEq is a better metric (which it probably is), rerelease the old results but updated to account for this change in calculations.

I don't know enough about this company but I was also a bit concerned listening to the recent Sunday Roast podcast with how frustrated CB seemed to get and his insistence that XTR missing their target of 2 Mt was immaterial because they specified 2 Mt or mineable, and they are definitely going to mine it which means people should be happy (around 8:30). I also don't like how he was so laser focused on the 1.1 Mt Cu when it turns out this was CuEq and was actually under 1 Mt of Cu. It sounds nitpicky but 1 Mt seems like a big milestone and they are desperate to be classed above that and not to miss it by a hair. XTR have a lot of other resources which seem quite promising though, the Zambia mines and Ascot and such. So perhaps even if Racecourse isn't all it's made out to be there is still significant value in this share.

I was looking to get into XTR and the drop gave me a good opportunity, but I didn't pending checking why the drop happened and then checking Steve4077's posts. I ran his numbers (the basic ones on old and new JORC) and found the numbers check out on the 0.135 Cu%. I don't really understand how that could be included since the scenario had cut-off of 0.15%. Also, I don't know anything about mining and didn't check any of the numbers that fed into those conclusions. Given how many deductions had to be made to reach the resource conclusion I wonder if there are some specifics that lead to there being some invalid calculation in the background. Not sure for now so didn't dip my toe in just yet.

Volume today on a board share purchase RNS, of all things, was 26x the 3 month average. Substantial movement.

Ah I completely missed that, I thought you had to register via Sunday Roast. I checked everywhere apart from the RNS!

How did everything go in the webinar?

If someone could post a transcript of the Q&A or summarise what happened it would be much appreciated. I emailed SR and didn't get a reply, and then I went looking for the zoom link but couldn't find it.

The Creek are cash rich and have debt facilities. A sale is possible, but I think just increased exposure to IIs and high net worth individuals is why they have done it. I think also BEN need publicity and broker notes will help with that, to legitimise the track record and assure investors that other parties have done some due diligence on them. I don't think it's likely to be a bad thing for shareholders.

@normbeef I'm pretty confident from the historic and new drills (none JORC compliant but still valid) that there is a lot of metal in the ground and that it will be very straightforward (comparing to other projects like GGPs Havieron) to make it work. The problem is that "very straightforward" for a mining co is still not a quick job, and takes a lot of funding for a company this size.

I am just hoping that we will rerate when the market (or a J/V partner) realises what UFO are sitting on.

@normbeef something else I was speculating was that Rod made Bill aware of the difficulties even with a "simple" open pit mine - it may be the better option for EH, but still would require significant work, capex and permitting. Perhaps most critically environmental permitting, storage, haul road, extraction plant and equipment. Sending a digger and some blokes might also be surprisingly expensive even if all of the above were handled or unnecessary. Changing tack and doing more drilling to ultimately develop a fully compliant JORC indicated resource might be the way to go. Getting a more advanced company on board to J/V once we have properly proved the resource (*cough* AAM *cough*) and planned any project in the area is imo a better approach if dewatering isn't that straightforward.

It could be just another example of BBG biting off more than UFO could chew by perhaps underestimating the challenges with bringing even a simple project into production, and Rod has corrected course based on his experience with exactly these sorts of tasks. Better to focus on IOCA in the short term if EH progress isn't easy, sunk cost fallacy and all that.

My suspicion (just a guess) is that they were going to dewatering the mine but found that it is going to take a long time and because the mine has been disused, a lot of the supports (wood or steel) will have been water damaged and the mine is unsafe. To replace that to even go down and see what's there might be quite expensive, money that they don't have right now and there are insanely high grades that are better accessed from surface in open pit than from the mine. The 8000+ g/t was adjacent to the mine. So the cost benefit is pretty weak for reopening the mine right now and they need to get more droll results and revenue first.

Agreed, could be a nice lift to get some more confidence in operations, trading and storage. Hoping for a bumper Q1 23' if they can pull the trigger on their stockpiles and get the trains to ship a decent chunk of it at a higher metcoal price.

We also can't control whether the trains run on time, and our last (our 10th total) was on the 23rd October. As far as I know we haven't received any more in Oct and so far in Nov either. We have booked two more in Nov and another two in Dec. On the BEN fb page there is some great news from 6 months ago though - https://www.marketwatch.com/story/norfolk-southern-boosts-conductor-trainees-more-than-700-to-fight-off-labor-shortages-11658945205?fbclid=IwAR2fRAFfsapWiVgNNC0cG-rxBs2U7Rxdh_ktqNoVHMFtoFnfgintbhbkQG8

Looks like as suspected NS is having trouble filling existing orders nevermind oversupply bookings due to a lack of drivers, but have seriously boosted their trainee numbers so hopefully this irons itself out in the New Year as these trainees get promoted to running shipments themselves. It also appears BEN have been setting up all the non-mining activities that are required to mine (bench setting, overburden clearing, remediation as they go, expansion of underground mining, etc.) so that they can get a great start when the trains do start rolling in. It isn't ideal but it seems to be on the right track, no pun intended.

Just got to wait a few months to start watching the increases in productivity of the site I think. I would expect that a regular schedule with NS is set up latest by end of Q1 '23 and AW has said explicitly he would like to give out the dividend when FY results are due to be announced in around July time, so they will likely be able to predict the feasibility around the end of Q1 with another major variable sorted out and allowing BEN SP to be dictated only by the price of metcoal.

Thanks for the info but I still don't see a funding agreement. I expect they will be able to get the investors for it, I just don't see the funding secured right now so comparison with the funding required just shows how they won't be able to borrow against collateral or raise from easily from the market. They will need angel investors / buy-out to get there I would guess.

I also wouldn't be here if the timescales for something to happen are 2 - 3 years out. Full expectation that we will get material updates within the next couple of months. The SP has been on a slow, linear drop for over 2 years at this point, but we have seen major value generation in that time (and raises, in fairness). Rod does seem to be moving fast with IOCA, and while there are a lot of permits and such to develop, and the agreement with AAM, we seem to be getting there.

The recent surprise raise in Sept was for drilling at Brockman and Sirius Ext, with significant investigations going on at Munni Munni. I think this is the value add that Rod wants to bring to market and advertise seriously, and it could be monumental for the company to get a big JORC PGM asset to their name. Worth riding out for that I think.

I had already watched this presentation and the only thing I heard was in the Q&A: "First quarter next year, in fact I've got Sam Quinn hiding at the back there, he's the CFO. So he's promised me he'll have the funding in place first quarter next year, so we can bring him up here and he can explain ... timeline, it'll be tight but end of first quarter next year, so first half next year we expect to be funded." Sam Quinn doesn't come up in that recording.

If anyone has a timestamp for where I need to be looking or better info, please pass it along.