Member Info for Steve4077

>> enthusiastic honesty that he seems to expect to see in others and they let him down which leads to nativity!

I think you probably mean naively, although I would welcome divine intervention at this point :)

Joking aside, this does seem to be more about technicalities and bad comms than any substantive problem with the company, so this likely means delay rather than disaster. A reassuring interview with a more in-depth explanation would help a lot.

Thanks all.

Is there a TXP telegram channel?

Hmm apparently there are characters I can't use - but I meant (insert current name here).

The de-ramper who keeps creating new accounts everyday is absolutely incessant. Anyone know what his deal is? Probably lost money on a stock (haven't we all) and has to blame someone else for his own decisions.

I don't mind the 'need clarification' posts, as I think better communication would make easier to dismiss the rantings of .

I doubt that the CEO and his team would be taking 10 days off over the holidays (as per interview) if there was any concern about financing.

L2 is only £300 a year so not a major expense. Some ETF are listed on multiple exchanges, so in some cases I am invested in a USD fund listed on the LSE, but the price is much more affected by trading on other exchanges. Therefore seeing the L2 depth is much more informative than the price (and the US price information is 15m behind).

For example, WisdomTree Copper 3x Daily Leveraged (3HCL) moved up almost 10% in a few minutes (in Bid/Ask) after the US inflation figures were released yesterday, but the LSE last trading price didn't reflect that. With leveraged funds you might want to be in and out fairly fast and without L2 that is impossible.

@FHAJ I don't have any other forum names. Everything I am currently invested in doesn't have LSE forums. Mainly ETFs, such as Copper Miners, Copper Price tracker, Physical Gold, Indian market tracker, S&P Materials, etc. or funds such as Henderson's Smaller Companies.

So its true that XTR comprises 100% of every investment I have (or had) for which there is an LSE forum.

I think at this point, no one is really convincing anyone else. As I said in the earlier post, the forum is now (as a group) very much opposed to my view, because anyone who agreed has already sold. I have stuck around to defend my numbers, but it is plainly just causing aggravation that benefits no one. Ultimately, the model from XTR will decide whether the holders or sellers are correct. I will try to resist posting any more until that is available.

>> You doubled the cost (identified in the economic modelling commissioned by Xtract) based on there being twice as much ore to process. That is a very big assumption and is simple wrong - processing the ore is only a small part of the overall opex associated with mining. The opex is a key figure for making an economic assessment and you made it up. Surely, as a professional analyst, you know this is a fatal flaw in your assessment?

Firstly, thanks for discussing numbers.

I based the double opex on it on digging up twice as much ore and processing it, not just processing it. The ore amount is from the RNS. However, you could argue that the pit size isn't necessarily twice as large to contain twice as much ore - there might be less 'dead rock'. We will only see that from the final model. The point from my doc was that I made all my assumptions very clear and the rationale behind them - I wasn't just inventing numbers with no reasoning behind them. I was happy to discuss those numbers, as I am now, but what happened was that people who agreed with them sold and people who disagreed stayed. So the current forum is the result of natural selection in favour of people who disagree with me - no surprise therefore at the personal attacks on my posts (although not in this case).

However, the main point of the doc wasn't really the model. I think I confused the issue by showing the model calculations. The main point was that the new JORC was really just the old JORC at a much lower cut-off and that was why I sold. If you compare at the same cut-off (by using the numbers from the model last year), there isn't much difference. Even the iceberg agreed in his blog that the new JORC was mainly created by converted the old resource model.

Theiceberg also pointed out that there might be ore in an updated resource model that didn't make it into the JORC (like the old resource model became the new JORC). I am sceptical because the main reason the old resource model became the new JORC was by lowering the cut-off from 0.3% to 0.1%. That trick won't work twice and low grade ore at distance from the original JORC will need a much bigger pit, which in itself requires more opex. However we won't know for sure until we see the updated model. If XTR publish new numbers that contradict my conclusions from their previous numbers, then I will reconsider.

As to the poster who keeps blaming me for his losses, the share price has dropped from 7p to less than 2p in recent months. When I made my post, it was already less than 2.5p. Some of the people who sold after that point may have made that decision after deciding they agreed with my numbers. However, it seems you are assuming that everyone who sold after that point was a scared idiot with no mind of their own who only sold because I posted (and presumably did not buy prior to that point based on positive posts). That doesn't really seem fair to other well-researched posters who also sold at the same time as

>> "Yes, completely agree. Its hard to find a scenario where CB is highlighting the release of MREs, creation of models and a decision to mine (while also holding off on more drilling) if the 'mine' wasn't economic - especially as there is income available to do drilling where necessary"

Yes, I did say that on Oct 16th and I believed it at the time. Since then, we have had significant new data and I changed my view based on that new information. Plainly, many other people did too.

Its also plainly the case that all responses to my posts are attacks on the messenger, with very little focus on the message. When I responded to Ted for example, I researched the mines he mentioned and posted a factual rebuttal. Most of my posts are based on direct quotes from RNS. You might not like the quotes, or what they imply, but that doesn't make them incorrect.

When people attack me personally (and note I do not attack anyone personally), I have to admit it makes me more inclined to dig deeper into the RNS. I didn't suddenly stop being analytical, but I am obviously stating things you don't like with so you assume any analysis must be wrong. I see this all the time, not just on here.

If you want to stop me posting, just use facts to counter what I saying.

4. Jeremy Reid / Quinton Hills decided it probably wasn't economic given the drilling results, but XTR hasn't passed on that information yet.

Note the last RNS stated "· Following completion of the Ascot Prospect Mineral Resource, the open pit mining study for the Bushranger Project will be updated to determine the economics of a 25Mtpa open pit mining operation, utilising the Mineral Resources at both the Racecourse and Ascot prospects".

Note: "to determine the economics"

Also Colin stated in the recent interview that XTR were waiting on a 3rd party assessment to determine if it was economic. He also said recently (in the AGM I think) that the people in Australia wanted to keep drilling.

In other words, everyone still invested here seems to assume it is economic (understandable as otherwise you would have sold), but XTR haven't actually said that. At least, not in recent months. There has been a noticeable change in language.

Although be quick, because this entire discussion is likely to be deleted tomorrow morning.

Just because I am not invested right now, doesn't mean I won't re-invest in the future (as I have stated in previous posts). I thought it was worth checking out the Empress presentation on that basis. If you have any issues with the calculation, please point them out.

Here is the original post from this morning:

"There is a new presentation from Empress Royalty. Manica is on Slide 13
https://empressroyalty.com/site/assets/files/6298/empress_royalty_-_presentation_-_november_2022.pdf

Their royalty is 3.375% of headline revenue, which they estimate to be 866oz per annum or $1.5m at $1750 oz

So Empress apparently believe that annual gold production will be 866oz / 3.375% = 25,600 oz or 727 kg. That is 60kg per month, rather than the 100kg quoted by XTR.

I did some digging to figure out why there was such a large difference and found this presentation from April last year
https://empressroyalty.com/site/assets/files/6157/emprnr2021-13_manicaclosing.pdf

The JORC gold grade is 1.8 g/t. Full production is 42,000 tpm, or 504,000 tons per year. Assuming 100% production 365 days a year with no disruption for rainy season, that would be 907,000 grams, or 32,000 oz. Empress are using exactly 80% of that number, probably as a 'realistic production' number.

I think the XTR numbers come from a DFS about six years ago, which focused on about a quarter of the JORC, but with a grade of 2.62 g/t. That was produced by XTR before MMP were involved, so I don't know to what extent it is still valid.

Finally, the Empress numbers are probably averages, so there may be more in the first year or two perhaps, and then less over time. However, there is still an obvious discrepancy between XTR production estimates in interviews and Empress numbers in the corporate presentation. That may be why investors are waiting to see production level before deciding on the potential value of Manica."

Yes, post was a link to latest Empress presentation and predicted production level (from Empress). Apparently any facts that contradict the XTR version of reality are no longer permitted on this bulletin board.
https://empressroyalty.com/site/assets/files/6298/empress_royalty_-_presentation_-_november_2022.pdf

Check slide 13 and see what Empress believe will be production from Manica. They state what they will receive as 3.375% of production. That will allow you to calculate total production. Posting that calculation is apparently trolling or disruptive and your post will be removed.

>> Digest the lyrics in their entirety

"Son, I've made a life by reading people's face and knowing what their cards were, by the way they held their eyes, so if you don't mind me saying, I can see you're out of aces. For a taste of your whisky, I'll give you some advice"

Guess what that advice might be.

>> The ore that is not included in the JORC resource , that makes up the resource model is ‘not’ just the low grade below the cut off grade

Yes, that was the expected response :)

If that was actually true, the new JORC would not have had to drop the cut-off from 0.3% to 0.1% to incorporate the old resource model. It was self-evidently much lower grade ore that was added to the JORC, not new ore at similar grades.

I haven't been posting, but as I had a mention on the Sunday Roast, I'll respond. Many people have commented on theiceberg's blog. Read it again, carefully, and consider the following:

Firstly, he states that "ALL research is good and valuable" and "By and large, I don’t have too many issues with the figures and maths"

The main point he makes is the difference between resource model and JORC. In effect, as I stated in my doc and theiceberg restated in his blog, the new JORC is comprised mainly of the old resource model. I called it a 0.15% cut-off version of the old JORC and the theiceberg calls it the old resource model, but we are talking about the same rock. What XTR have done is take the ore that was not good enough to get into the old JORC with a 0.3% cut-off, but apparently is good enough to get into the new one with a 0.1% cut-off.

Bear in mind that means that Anglo were aware of the ore that is in the new JORC when they sold - they just weren't prepared to do the drilling to move into their JORC. So if they didn't think it was economic in a resource model, why would it be economic in a JORC?

However, the iceberg makes the valid point that the same might be true now. There could be new ore that the drilling found that wasn't good enough to make it into the new JORC, but could be included in an updated resource model. There are two major considerations here:

1) The way that the old resource model became the new JORC was by lowering the cut-off, not by finding significant new ore. However, the new cut-off is 0.1%. Not much you can add by lowering the cut-off again, although there could be low grade ore away from the original JORC/Resource model perhaps. And there is maybe potential at Ascot.

2) Even though theiceberg has been selling lately, he is still invested, or was when he blogged.

One final thought. The Gambler is one of my karaoke songs, which is not surprising given my past career. Not sure the ideal response to my doc is to post a song with the lyrics: "Know when to walk away, know when to run.".

Steve - last comment on this as I think I am just annoying people by continuing the debate. Ultimately, I can only go off what was written in the RNS by XTR. One clearly states a Cu cut-off and the other states CuEq. I've gone back and looked at other RNS and the only place I can a mention of a CuEq cut-off is in the latest RNS. It is possible that XTR are simply inconsistent in their reporting.