Member Info for stevemocal

Sure CB said we are on hole 40 and then later said 44? So a minimum of 3 drill holes completed and not yet reported. Come on CB... stop teasing.

There's a typo. Hole 8 is referenced as the sample for both the northern and central sections of Racecourse.

Andrew - Good shout on the nod to Newcrest. Don't suppose it will escape AA's notice either.

I remember Iceberg posting there may not be enough molybdenum for it to be economical to extract and this should at least answer that question. And if you happen to already have a molybdenum processing plant already then it is obviously going to make the economic case a lot easier with no capital investment and associated risk.

Looks like CB has decided to start the negotiation process before the 2mt trigger.

Ella - The market rarely acts as I expect which is why I stick to investing and not trading! Hopefully I am wrong this time too.

Bet that didn't make anyone's top 10 of subject for the next RNS!

Won't set the market alight but a statement of intent and seriousness I guess. Would like to see news re holes 37 and 38 hot on it's tail.

Unfortunately, we still also have a seller acting as a drag on the SP. Needs some good news to convince them to stop selling and/or bring in more buyers to build the momentum.

Even if the drill teams took a 10 day break over Christmas and new year, they've had enough time to finish holes 37 and 38 twice over. News on holes 39 and 40 now due too?!? Yeah, yeah, I know... patience. Bloody patience. :)

Hole 38 must be long finished. Assuming it was drilled in a similar direction to hole 35 but a couple of hundred metres south, then it could be the first step towards proving the theory that as we go further south the copper mineralisation intersections thicken at Ascot, move closer to surface and grades improve. If that is the case, then releasing drill hole info for hole 38 (perhaps with some nice photos of drill cores) just after we've had those good assays results for hole 35 would make it really significant news.

I note that in CB's interview this afternoon he said there 'is a good chance the mineralisation is moving towards surface' but I bet he's already had the initial report for hole 38 and know full well that it is! Could the reason for the rather strange late release of this afternoon's RNS be that there will be more news in the morning? I've not got an RNS prediction right yet but...

Montyfino - Yes, a plan to mine strengthens the negotiating hand because it proves it is economic to bring the copper up. However, it also allows XTR to trigger the AA buyback clause in the event that Racecourse falls just short of a JORC complaint resource estimate of 2mt of Cu Eq, by being able to legitimately say they are planning to mine. That is important because the Cu at Ascot, which would undoubtedly take us smashing through the 2mt target, can't be included unless the resource estimate for it is JORC compliant (as per the clause) and that isn't part of the plan for Ascot or selling Bushranger.

500mt of ore is the minimum most people are expecting. I already think it is significantly more than that (based on my own crude number crunching/modelling of data available) and Racecourse is still very much open to the south.

Hole 36 is the furthest south (for Racecourse) and hit 205m of strong mineralisation from 11m. They also mention in the last presentation that there is a historic drill hole to the south of hole 36 that found copper and they have used in their modelling to determine that the intrusion doglegs to the south. They obviously need to prove how far it goes and to confirm the grades with more drill holes and assays and they were waiting on the relevant permissions to do that.

If Racecourse does extend for another 200-300m (as they seem to think it does) then it will add another chunky bit of ore to the pot.

orangecannon - As far as I am aware, the other 3 licences have had no holes drilled and no geophysics done... virgin land. And there was obviously a reason for taking them as well as the EL5574 (typo in my last post) licence. We must surely do some EM and/or IP survey before letting them go?

Docit - Footrot is within the EL5573 licence, so I don't think CB could chunk that up to sell Racecourse and Ascot but keep Footrot. But there is also EL8305, EL 8306 amd EL8585, which don't appear to be part of the buyback clause. Might be worth holding onto them and investing in some geophysics? See the following presentation...

https://xtractresources.com/wp-content/uploads/Bushranger-Summary-Presentation_April-2020.pdf

We already have nine drill holes in or around Ascot and time for another 20 (and assays back) before June. Plus we have the geological analysis from Racecourse to help with modelling Ascot and the EM and IP surveying which provide evidence of scale and will be supported by 'ground truthing' drill hole data. I do not think the eventual resource estimate will be that loosely inferred and I'd be bitterly disappointed if we took a huge discounting hit.

Let us also not forget that there is a kilometer long anomaly at Footrot and likely other porphyries in the area with copper and/or gold e.g. to the east of Racecourse, where there are signs of older porphyry systems that may contain gold that wasn't washed away by the later Racecourse intrusion event. More reasons to be confident that Bushranger as a whole is going to just keep on giving and, therefore, for AA not to risk letting it go to the open market by asking for an unreasonable amount of discounting.

Just my two-penneth for what it is worth. Always good to here different views and perspectives.

Steve - I can guarantee you that no client that I have ever worked for would remain silent if I missed milestones (especially ones set by myself!) and didn't even offer an explanation. And I am pretty sure that when the boot is on the other foot, CB doesn't either. Or Buffet!

We are all on this journey together, have a shared faith that we will eventually arrive at our desired destination, and will therefore patiently endure the bumps along the way. Doesn't mean that we aren't going to still moan at the driver when the progress updates and toilet breaks we were told to expect are seriously late!

James - could be.

You'd think though that if the drill teams downed tools for Christmas, and then had trouble getting back due to covid rules, that would amount to the sort of 'material change' that CB said would be reported? I guess the commitment to giving news at the start of a drill hole, at the end and if a material change happens, has gone out the window.

Let's hope that news is being stockpiled for a news bomb that will soon be set off. Careful though CB... "you're only suppose to blow the bloody doors off!"

If the lab doesn't pick up speed it will be F'#k All February and Parched March.

Need some drill news to keep us going - holes 37 and 38 definitely finished.

It is at least 27 days since holes 37 and 38 started. Even if the drill crews were given a 10 day break over Christmas and new year, that is 17 + days of drilling, those holes must be finished and news must be imminent.

As for the long awaited assay results... are they using a pestle and mortar to grind the cores?!?

Ella - I suppose there could be a delay in getting permissions for new drill pads but I don't think that should be holding up the drilling because, by my reckoning, there are four pads locations that have not yet been used and we can, of course, reuse those already used.

Don't get me wrong with my little moan... I am not concerned by the delays. It is pure impatience on my part and a lust for some news to digest! Maybe a little greed thrown in too!

Lucky - The presentation I read for the Andes project stated $1.88bn USD for the 'initial' capex. XTR used $1.45bn AUD ($1.05bn USD) in their conceptual pit study for the 'total' capex. Hard to make a direct comparison when you don't really know what either company mean by 'initial' or 'total' capex but I'll revise my statement to say Bushranger would be a lot cheaper! ;)

The point I was trying to make is that capex and risk play a huge part when assessing and comparing the value of assets. A low risk and low capex asset can literally be worth 10 time that of a high risk and high capex asset. You could even have two near identical porphyry systems but the locations mean that one is worth billions, whilst the other is worth nothing. All part of the fun when trying to work who to put your money on!

Lucky - There are lot's of reason for the relatively low market cap for that company.

Firstly, the infrastructure isn't really nearby .g. it is 60km to electricity (Bushranger literally has it meters away) and it is 2,000m up a mountain in the Andes. The capex reflects this, with an estimate of close to £2bn, whilst Bushranger would be a small fraction of that.

Secondly, there is jurisdiction risk. Despite relative stability in recent years, South America is a volatile place politically. Chile has just elected a far left government and they are openly talking about introducing mining levies to redistribute wealth (no doubt significant chunks into the pockets of the politicians). And far left politics is not opposed to a bit of nationalisation from time to time either. Chile is a hugely more risky place to invest your money than Australia whether you are a PI or one of the major mining companies.

Lastly, from what I can tell, they are planning to finance and mine themselves. Again, this adds huge risk as something can easily go wrong in the next decade or so that it will take before they start making any money. XTR on the other hand are planning a quick sale which means less money than if it mined for the next 100 years but a very nice return in the relative short term... this will be reflected in the SP when a new JORC is issued and it is certain the project is viable.

And very lastly, IMO Bushranger is going to deliver a LOT more than 2mt of cu Eq. We've been sizing up Racecourse for the last year but there is a family of porphyries down there and I do not believe Racecourse is the daddy... there is a lot more to come.

Spacemonkey82 - The problem with Xtract is that they chose to set expectations by giving an estimate on assay turnaround times. And when that didn't happen, they reset expectations by telling us the lab would shortly only be processing XTR samples and we'd soon be getting near weekly assay results. Expectations set twice and not delivered twice.

Maybe the delay shouldn't be a surprise but neither too should shareholders becoming grumpy and speculating in the absence of any explanation. An 11am RNS to shut us moaners up would be most welcome.

BCB - You have some research catching up to do yourself. There is no raise coming.