Member Info for stevemocal

The market won't pick up on this... needs an RNS re the African production/revenue. Good interview.

Another factor in the valuation... If you need to mine for 20, 50 or even 100 years to get your goodies out of the ground, then the geopolitical risks play a significant part in the valuation of an asset. Anything in South America is significantly more risky than anything in Australia and will be reflected in the price a major will be willing to pay.

I reckon the majors who have invested in Peru are feeling rather twitchy right now with the government there wanting a bigger cut and even talking about nationalisation. I think assets in safe jurisdiction are going to be in high demand as the world around us appears to become more and more unpredictable, intolerant and unstable each day. Worrying times.

The assay results should start coming in regularly now... it is 4 months today since hole 25 was reported as finished!

The geophysics shouldn't take the 4 weeks predicted in the RNS on 28th February. When CB was interviewed by Zak on 2nd March they had already complete 2 of the 6 planned lines.

I agree with Andrew444 that we need a new JORC/conceptual open pit/financial model to push the SP into double figures and not retrace. It doesn't look like that will come for at least a couple of months though because Racecourse is still open to the south. Frustrating that we need to wait on drill pad permissions, then do the drilling and then wait on assays in order to complete the Racecourse picture to the south, but it could take us smashing us through the 2mt target if just part of the 1.5km down to Ascot has decent mineralisation.

Agree that we could do with some good news out of Africa to give us a little kick north and further de-risk this. Revenue streams coming online and further evidence of a possible IOCG would suffice!

That was a good question from iWantThatOne and answer from theiceberg. I have always thought that it would be really helpful if investors could literally see what has been add by XTR phase 1 & 2 drilling.

CB - Any chance when you next do a video presentation, that you could begin by showing the 3D 'resource model mineralisation interpretation' based on the JORC data using the 03% cut-off, then the JORC data using a 0.15% cut-off and then with phase 1 & 2 data included (using a mix of assay result and visual estimates if necessary)? I think that would really show how much has been added and give investors (existing and new) a lot of confidence.

We keep adding the tonnage, pretty much as expected.

I really don't see how April is possible for a new JORC/conceptual open pit/financial model. We don't even have the permissions for the new pads yet to test the southern extension and that obviously has to go into the mix as we were getting thick, good grade, near surface mineralise just before it started to dogleg to the south. Even a few hundred meters (and CB is hoping it is 1.5 km all the way down to Ascot) will add a significant amount to the pot. Good to hear the geophysics supports the theory that Racecourse continues to the south.

Steve4077 - We need to think about the policy intent when the contract/clause was written.

Surely, the sole purpose of attaching time restraints to the buy-back process is to stop AA being able to indefinitely delay another company (the existing owner of Bushranger) from selling it or developing it into a mine? The clause is not there to force a cheap sale back to AA before the owner can prove up more than 2mt of contained Cu.

So, assuming the lawyers engaged knew what they were doing, yes, you would set a time limit for AA responding to an invite from the owner of Bushranger to take part in buy-back negotiation on the basis 2+mt of contained Cu has been discovered. However, I do not believe there will be any time limit placed on the owner of Bushranger for making this invite (once 2mt is discovered) or providing the evidence for AA to do its' due diligence or for an independent valuation to take place... it is simply unreasonable not to allow the owner the opportunity to finish quantifying the size of the asset that is for sale.

Even if AA did have a cunning plan all along to shaft the new owner by forcing a sale as soon as they reach 2mt, I do not believe the lawyers/exec's would have missed that the company could potentially avoid this by pretending not to have 2mt until they have finished sizing the asset. Sorry, but it is all too far fetched for me.

Another thing I find hard to believe (which CB has said) is that XTR could choose to reject an independent valuation. I find it hard to believe that this would not be binding on the seller (what is the point of the buy back clause if it isn't?) and suspect this would need to be fought through the courts if AA dug their heels in.

I suppose time will tell.

bscktothesoil - The main reason for doubting they can prove 2mt yet is the fact that they haven't declared a new JORC.

Nothing stops them declaring a new JORC and then carrying on drilling to calculate the full size of Racecourse before beginning negotiations with AA. IMO there is actually an obligation to tell the market when they know there is 2mt because of the buy-back clause and the impact this would have on the SP (not that everyone agrees with this position!). You certainly don't need to know where you are going to put your tailings for a JORC.

I am incline to agree with Lucky, that we will not get a significant update re Bushranger until we've drilled more in both the north and south and got assays back... i.e. no time soon. I suppose we might get some early assays back from Ascot and they will help if there is gold to boost the Cu Eq,

I suspect we may need some news from Africa (confirming cashflow) in order to steady the SP whilst the work down under continues.

Cygnus - People who live in dyslexic houses shouldn't throw scones. ;)

Iceberg - Any plans to update your blog and treat us to a bit more detail on your theories on why you think there a multiple porphyries and what this might mean (as opposed to two large ones)?

Now we need CB to add some context via an interview.

As I suspected, it doesn't appear to be heavily mineralised with copper (that would have been RNS's already), so we'll have to wait and see what else the assays finds - at least less of a wait now (was the the idea of holding back?).

It is also clear that having to work off a handful of already approved pads has been challenging but we will hopefully get approvals for the new pads in the next few days and some drilling from more exciting areas can begin.

As usual, I have no idea how the market will react to this. Encouraging though to see some large buys showing up after hours last night.

How is the starting of an MIMDAS IP survey deemed RNS worthy news but not the completion of the last 7 drill holes?

I've heard the excuse that something must be going on in the background (and thought it myself) but, if that is the case, when does this 'something' end and the news resume? Are we going to have radio silence on any meaningful Bushranger news until the model is complete or AA negotiations begin/complete? Are we looking at the end of April? May? June?

CB said in the podcast that he follows the BB's to know "where the uncertainty, where the gaps in information are" but instead of updating on drill hole and assay delays, he chose to talk about the last assay results not being well received but adding to the pot... which we'd worked out ourselves! So frustrating.

Iceberg - Yes, it has always bugged me that CB has openly admitted that Bushranger is way too big a project for a junior like XTR to every mine but still talks about the option to trigger the buy-back clause with a decision to mine!

I agree, the contract (which we haven't seen!) must stipulate some sort of minimum requirement for declaring a decision to mine. That or there is some recognised standard covering this. Here's hoping Racecourse has the 2mt and we don't need to concern ourselves.

RealtimeRob - It is just a reality that shareholders will only ever be privy to a tiny fraction of the information held by a company, including details of the contracts they sign.

XTR have made shareholders aware from day one that there is a buy-back clause within the Bushranger Acquisition Agreement and have summarised what that means in relevant RNS's and presentations. They have never released the actual contract and you can tell from the wording that what we have been told is just a summary because it contains none of the legal speak or detail.

You may not agree still, so let's just agree to differ and move on.

RealtimeRob - You are claiming to be able to interpret the terms of a contract but you can't even recognise that what you are reading isn't from a contract.

I give up.

RealtimeRob - Contracts are often commercially sensitive and are not routinely put into the public domain. If you think that what we have seen is a 'copy and paste' from the contract itself, then you can't have ever seen one.

As for AA producing a JORC... it is ridiculous. Who can give me a link to where XTR provide the exact drill coordinates (not a dot on a map), or the exact angle of every drill hole, or the exact direction they were drilled in? XTR geologist split each drill core, analyse and log findings, send one half for assays and archive the other for future reference... where is this data in the public domain and how would an AA geologist access these core samples for review?

Hey-ho. People will believe what they want.

RealtimeRob - None of us have seen the terms of the buyback contract and you are assuming there is no more detail to the clause other than the summary provided within various XTR reports, RNS's or presentations.

Just think about it. There is simply no way the Prospect Ore team, the XTR team (when buying Bushranger from Prospect) or their expensive lawyers, signed up to a buy-back agreement that would allow AA to tie them over a barrel whilst they are shafted every which way but loose for a month of Sundays. It just wouldn't be professional.

Only XTR are going to be releasing a JORC for Bushranger. AA will not be able to force XTR to the table. Negotiations will begin when CB is ready. AA will happily wait because they have first refusal. The valuation will be based on the evidence and will not 'cap out' at 2mt.

That said... where are the bloody drill hole results Mr B!?!?

Jezzoo - We will be getting a JORC before the AA negotiations kick off. 'Inferred' is just one of the resource classifications of the JORC code.

It will also be for XTR to produce the JORC and for AA to review as part of their due diligence if they are interested in buying (same if an independent expert needs to be brought in).

Generally speaking a reassuring RNS... I am glad CB is rushing to a sale and going to do a good job sizing the prize. Still don't understand the reasoning for sitting on the drill hole news though.

Howezap - It would be nice if XTR could release some news and give us something else to talk about other than trolls.

cboney -Not much to discuss in the absence of any news.

We've gone from the expectation of weekly news with drills holes completing and assay results dropping alongside other news... 10 weeks today since the last drill hole update. We can only hope there is a good/exciting reason for the radio silence.

They'd be no tree shake if XTR started to release some of the news they are sitting on. It's as if they don't care because they know there is a huge payday coming regardless of what happens to the SP in the interim. However, they forget that some of us have wives and the grief that we must endure when the SP is left to drift.

My missus keeps telling me I'm deaf and to go to the doctors and get my ears syringed... little does she know I've been putting wax in. Come on CB, give us some good news and spare the oppressed.