Member Info for stevemocal

Andrew - always nice to have someone coming up with similar figures to your own!

Will be chuffed with 60p'ish but have a feeling hole 5 may make the numbers even better.

From the various RNS's, I have the following for the 3 completed holes to date:

H1: 1,235m with mineralisation from 330 = 950m
H2: 899.4m with mineralisation from 130m = 769.4m
H3: 975.5m with mineralisation from 290m - 685.5m

So clearly not a cube and won't be cuboid. So let's assume instead that it is 'ellipsoid' i.e. a bit like a squashed/elongated/deformed sphere. The (basic) formula for calculating the volume of an ellipsoid is: 4/3 x Pi x ABC

A, B and C being the radius of the length, height and width. Punch in the above numbers as our A,B and C and I get 263m cubic meters. Multiply by 2.7 to get the tonnage and that's 707,400 mt of mineralisation.

If we then assume our mineralised rock has a Cu Eq content of 0.45% (which CB seems to think is possible) then that equates to 3.18mt of Cu. Based on the John Cornford estimate of 40p for 2mt, we would therefore looking at over 60p per share. And that was before the recent increases in the price of copper.

And let's also not forget that the thing does seem to be getting bigger, with talk of multiple porphyry's, multiple cores and even buried cathedrals filled with riches. Adding just a bit to the width and depth at the fat end of Jabba will make a significant difference. Lots more holes needed to build the 3D picture and, of course, assay results to start confirming the content but it is looking very good.

GLA

Hewhodares1 - The buyback is to be based on a "fair market value as determined by an Independent Expert in accordance with the JORC and Valmin Code". So the value depends on how big it is and how much copper and gold is in there... which is going to a take a lot more drilling and assays to determine.

For now, you'll have to content yourself with an estimated buyback of 'a lot'. ;)

Reckon so L2!

12mt at $9k per tonne represents a rather large asset! Anything even remotely close is going to be insane.

This thing just keeps getting bigger and bigger and there is no doubt in my mind that we have more than enough volume. Which means there is one final hurdle to get over before we have a clear run to the winning line... confirmation of sufficient concentration levels of copper and gold to make the beast viable to mine. Once we are over that, it is just a matter of how big the win is going to be.

Assay results please!

It has to be deliberate to stop people trying to model it and calculate the size until there are enough holes/assays to do it properly.

My advice... try and enjoy the tease as this beauty slowly reveals herself! ;)

If we follow the same pattern as with the other three drills then we should expect an RNS on Tuesday, maybe Wednesday next week. That should confirm the drill has begun, current depth and the point at which they hit the mineralisation. Hopefully that news will help to keep the SP ticking up until the assay results from H1 come back. And if the assay results from H1 are as good as CB seems to expect, then the price will fly again. An then again if H2 assays confirm the depth and then again if H3 confirms the depth.

I'm struggling to understand though where they are putting H4? If they are moving it down the road because they think the train they've discovered goes round the bend (and if they are right), then our Stavros Flatley Junior porphyry will well and truly have turned into Jabba the Hutt. And who cares just how fat Jabba is... we know he is super fat and the price of blubber just keeps on rising!

A very exciting 6-8 weeks ahead.

TDoubleu - re your post above... I think we now know who was making those 250k buys!

Iceberg - Isn't the point at which AA would get involved already determined i.e. 2Mt of Cu discovered or a decision to mine? If that is the case, and a revised JORC after the first 9 holes indicates more than 2Mt of Cu, then doesn't that automatically trigger AA talks? Genuine question!

I don't know enough about how porphyry systems form to answer your technical question. But I do know this... the chances of hitting the sweet spots with any of these three drills is zero. Therefore things can only get better.

In the RNS of 13th August 2020 it says...

"On completion of drilling the Phase 1 and Phase 2 drill holes, it is anticipated that the Racecourse mineral resource will be re-estimated under JORC (2012)."

So that's the plan, unless the plan changes... and we've not been told of any change as far as I know. No reason not to stick to it IMO and to then follow up with a further series of drills to firm up the JORC even more. My guess is that after the initial 9 holes we'll have a clear indication that we are sitting on more than 2mt of Cu and that will trigger AA talks. Getting AA on board asap, and perhaps even their input into where to drill next, would make sense to me.

Just my take on it... I'm no expert.

GLA.

You can find it in the RNS issued on 13th August 2020...

"Nine holes for 6,285m have been planned. The drilling will consist of two phases, with the initial phase comprising three Priority 1 drill holes for 2,290m. Providing encouraging results are received from the Priority 1 drill holes, a further six Priority 2 holes will be drilled for an additional 3,995m. On completion of drilling the Phase 1 and Phase 2 drill holes, it is anticipated that the Racecourse mineral resource will be re-estimated under JORC (2012)."

Tell me about it. No writing left on my F5 key but muscle memory has kicked in.

Blimeyori - Yes, I have read interesting posts over the last couple of days re various scenarios and what that might mean in terms of value. However, I was specifically wanting some reassurance re the size based on the latest drilling and that I've not lost all my mathematical abilities!

Iceberg - I agree we need assays to firm up the size of what is economical to mine but mineralisation is all we have to compare at the moment and based on that we are sitting on something massive. Thanks for some reassurance that I can still do maths! ;)

Iceberg... I don't make a habit of posting on BB's (as you can see) but feel compelled to make an exception today!

I've been crunching numbers over the weekend to try and roughly work out how much bigger the system might be (size is all we have to go on for the moment) and can't quite believe the numbers I am coming up with based on the first 2 drills and where we must be with drill 3. Having read many of your posts (which I thank you for as they have helped me understand the opportunity here), I can't believe that you've not being doing the same. Please tell me we have an 'Emperor's New Clothes' situation going on here where nobody wants to say what they see because nobody else is sayin it! I'm coming up with numbers indicating it is multiple times bigger than the existing JORC.

There you go... first post and I risk ridicule! Am I mad? Anyone else coming up with similar numbers?!?