Member Info for theiceberg

Cyber, not believing the CEO 100%, isn't a negative, its just something you do. Like having to charge or fuel your car, before you go on a journey.
I also agree that Colin and the team have been pretty outstanding re Bushranger. Because of this, if he says that results will come in 6-8 weeks then tbh I generally believe that (not just because he said it but because he's evidenced it as well)

Almost every single person has this forum, has at some point said. I Wish Colin would do this, or why havent we done xxxx. And quiet right to!

Just on the Tier 1 comment from yesterday. How many articles have we seen pick up on this? If copper tier 1 projects are announced once a year across the world why isn't this news?
I've spoken to mining.com etc to try ang get them to do a piece, but they always say it's too early.

I've said before and 100% mean it when I say that bushranger is-will be the biggest undeveloped copper project in Australia, bigger than Rio's Winu, I think companies will be falling over themselves for it, if AA don't grab it. It is quiet simply the best exploration story (at 6p) on the London Stock Exchange. All IMO. GL

I started to write this in my last post, but hit the word limit, which probably means I am typing too much.
It's not up to me to decide tier 1 or 2. I have my view, but tbh it's an arbitrary figure, with many different classifications, which essentially means a very big mine.
Re tier 1 I was always taught that they were rare back in 2010 you might get 6 a year, nowadays some years the world doesn't find any.
If I think recent undeveloped Tier 1's I get tonnages of 2000-5000MT at .35 to .8 CU
If i think developed Tier 1's you get similar values.
Personally I wouldn't classify WInu as Tier 1, although I know some do.
But at the end of the day, there is no set definition, Barrick I believe had an internal tier 1 defintion for gold at 10moz, but other definitions range from 5 to 30moz.
Does it matter, not really you don't value a tier 1 higher than a tier 2. You value the project and the metals it contains against the cost of extraction, LOM etc.

Morning Prickly.

I don't for a second regret anything i said, I was deliberately and systematically misrepresented, despite many attempts to correct this. I've also said on many many occasions that different opinions are good, I am often wrong and will say I am, most of the time.

I think the major difference is some almost religious belief that CEO's-chairman etc are always truthful and or accurate. They simply are not. It's probably the second most dangerous thing a new investor can believe - the first is believing ramping on boards on AIM or Twitter.
CEO's lie to each other (see Brooke and CGP accusing Nick and SOLG of lying and Nick and SOLG accusing Brooke and CGP of lying). CEO's often lie about fundraising - how many times have we heard a CEO say that they are fully funded then chuck out a placing a few weeks later. (again to add, XTR is a little different as it was actually included in the accounts).
Nomads which are meant to stop CEO's from lying are next to useless.
Then we've got the times when CEO's promise or say something in good faith, but it's simply wrong. Such as we will get the assay results in 6 week but its actually 12, or we will get the FS completed by the end of 2020, but it's actually the end of 2021, a year later. There are many, not me, who where here before Bushranger who have complained that they were promised the African assets along time ago.

I've spoken to many CEO's and alot of them are nice chaps, but that doesn't mean i trust or believe everything they say. Quite the opposite.

IMO you should do your own research and believe the CEO when what he says matches it, or its independently verified.
back at the end of Oct in my last blog i wrote this "Simply put, Bushranger now makes even the largest Northparkes porphyry look small, currently without any further expansion we are probably bigger than the Northparkes two largest porphyry systems added together, so around 400-500Mt, with the extensions from 17, 18, 23, 16 all looking like they will extend this even more, we are looking to be in the 600-750Mt at around a .35% so between 2.1mt and 2.6mt of Copper. This is of course a very preliminary figure and there is much I don’t know."

So, Do i believe Colin if he says that we are now at 500 MT and his Geo's will say this. Yes
Do I think it will be expanded further. Yes
But not just because Colin has said so in an interview.
All professional investors do this - I am not and don't claim to be a professional investor. They have teams of analyst churning out research.
If the Market believed everything a CEO said, almost every AIM miner would be valued at 1bn! (tongue in cheek).
To bring it back to XTR, as I've said recently, if the Market believed everything Colin said, we would be valued at 10-20p, we are not, so it doesn't. The Market wants independent valuations and clarifications. Assays-Jorc's etc or for an external company to come and in and value it highly.

Ella, I agree but I would be flabbergasted if they dont. Looking at the surface of the core will only tell you so much.
Tbh if they have only just finished the hole in the last day of so, they probably haven't even had time to cut the core or do a detailed analyst.
Given the importance of the hole ,it might be nice to get a detailed breakdown of vein coverage, % pyrite , bornite etc. Obviously they won't have this yet as they are working like the clappers.

Thanks, couldn't see it on the map, so we've got one rig still drilling the open pit and the second out on the SE anom, which for now is going for a deeper? 14 look.

Forgot to add it looks like 27, is being drilled from 14, but probably deeper.
But no indication for 26?....i would like to drill from the 25 pad, but deeper and further (maybe 850m), it would give a great profile of that section.

My thoughts pre the 24-25 results
https://icebergshares.blogspot.com/2021/10/xtract-bushranger-copper-exploration.html
25 is exactly what i wanted, It wasn't where i thought the main mineralisation would be, as above, but it would have been across the crown (Looking at it it's probably above the crown as pyrite isn't that strong). It makes sense that the mineralisation is deeper where 25 is and then gets shallower and stronger to the South and SE. It discounts the barren porphyry that we discussed last week and thought unlikely. XTR is rightly being careful about whether it contains mineralisation, if it does it's likely to be the .15 kind of mark at this location, which would be bang on target. Again to stress this is exactly what we wanted, if indeed the SE anomaly is a massive new porphyry.
The gold values in hole 25 might be interesting.

Re 24, again as per the blog "So, to conclude Hole 13 has added approx. 300m to the length of the deposit, Holes 14,16 and 24 could extend this further." It looks like it further extends it by as much as 100-150m from hole 13.

The results are as good as could be hoped for.

Indeed , but a pre development stage is essentially when a company has a FS but hasn’t yet gone down the road of financing and development. You need the figures for the dcf ie actual recovery rates, water bore holes eia etc

Thanks Andy

I didn’t like the figure either, unlike a big deposit like cascabel which would have had 150-200m spent on it by PFS. Bushranger has had a fraction of that spent on it so the cost value will obviously be much lower so it’s an awful way of valuing. However it is what it is and if that’s what the calculation says to use, then you use it.

Here’s hoping we get good news about the drilling tomorrow!

Aeris I liked your post as it s how the forum should work imo.
I posted a link to the valmin code earlier, in that link is a table of what the code allows and doesn’t allow. It’s quite specific that dcf-income can NOT be used for exploration projects. This isn’t me or Colin or the LSE. The code doesn’t allow it.
Of course a different method of valuation can be used and not valmin but I only used valmin because that’s what xtr said they would use in the RNS.
Just to reiterate it’s not me saying to use a range between cost and market, it’s the rules of the code that exists in the contract between AA and xtr.

I am more than happy to move on as I think a simple valuation exercise has been done to death. Hopefully folks understand a bit more about valmin and valuing a project. Btw if folks want a really wide range read about the Oxus arbitration valuations from memory it was between 40m and 1.2bn
Cheers

I agree Xeiger, he played a blinder with the placings. I fully supported them and against many on here, the warrants which I personally liked.
My point though still stands, you can't get frustrated, if your major project has never had a real valuation of any kind (the scoping was good but based on AA's figures)
equally you can't expect to say that you will use the Valmin code in an RNS for valuation purposes, then complain if somebody uses the cost valuation contained within the valmin code!

Ill post this again, hopefully some folks might understand, if i say it again.

It's been nice to see everybody's research over the weekend, I've deliberately stayed quiet as i didn't want to keep replying to everything and force my opinion. It's good that people have different opinions and research it.

To correct a few comments though.
As i said when i made the valutation. " I've been putting together some figures based on Valmin figures in the Lachlan Fold, concentrating on inferred-indicated resources and a scoping study.
I've always shied away from doing any kind of valuation as I think it's a very complex task, so the figures are pretty meaningless. "
also
"But i would add, this is a conservative realistic value, which could be challenged by us. It doesn't really take into account the value of the 20% for AA, where we can dictate the price. Their might be more than 2.2MT, it allows no value for the SE anomaly or anything else in the license.
So it's really a worse case scenario IMO"
The range was 5p to 18p.
There has been a certain amount of talk about how 5p is an unrealistic valuation and tbh it's been misused by a few(mainly one person) for whatever their twisted point is. This talk is to completely misunderstand what the Valmin code is. It is a range based on at least 2 different valuation methods. There are only 2 methods that can be used for Bushranger, Cost and Market. The third is DCF or income, which CANNOT be used for an exploration project.
The Cost valuation will always be the lowest as it looks at how much money has been spent on the exploration. This isn't debateable, its just a fact. therefore the lowest figure in the range will always be low.
The Market valuation is based on local similar projects, again this isn't really open to debate, by and large it will be based on projects in the Lachlan Fold (see copper hill Valmin calculations)
But to re-iterate again, this isn't what I think it's worth, or even what AA will pay for it. It IS a calculation based on the Valmin code, which is what I've said all along.
So comparing the 5p valuation to What Colin has said is simply wrong and misleading. The other end of the scale is the Market valuation which came out at 18p ( a conservative value which didn't inc the SE anom or a resource above 2.2MT), which compares well with Colin's all including valuation of 25p.
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings deliberate or otherwise.

Xeiger, that's exactly the point, we don't have any views or valuations apart from a few snipets from XTR. There are no broker notes, nothing except information that comes through Zak interviews and he's not the most well respected person.
I am a massive massive believer in Bushranger and Eureka, i can't wait for the drill results or visuals, I think its a steal at the current price. But If Colin's getting frustrated then he should do something about it.

news I'll keep to the professional when you stop misrepresenting what i say. I call a spade a spade.
You've been known on the LSE boards for years as one of the worse rampers, who trades his positions repeatedly. i.e you buy, post 100 times a day, sell, then you might buy back in again, post 100 times a day again then rinse and repeat. Over the last 10 years you've been caught out doing this constantly. Whilst your in you attack anybody that dares to disagree with your ramping views.
So to use you with professional, no thanks.

Fair enough steve, and thanks for taking the time. :)
I can't see the point of doing it personally, if nobody but AA will see it and the contract with AA is that the independent valuation will be used then.......

News, arguing with you is like trying to argue with a wet flannel. I can't be bothered tbh you read everything but seem to understand nothing.

News, are you capable of not misrepresenting something?
First there was the 5p valuation (which i have explained lots of times and you don't seem to have the intelligence to grasp).
Now this?
Do you know how many tier 1 copper projects there are in development in Australia? Might it not be that this both the biggest undeveloped copper project in australia and still not be a tier 1 project?

I am happy to re-listen, but come on guys, do we really think AA will simply say, yes lets abandon that contract that offers us a better valuation and instead we will let you come up with your own internal figure?
When in life does that ever happen?
AA will squeeze XTR like a grape and try and get it cheap. The best defence XTR has is not hyped up internal figures which AA or nobody else will believe, the best defence is getting as much quality, independent material and valuations as possible into the Market, getting the SP up, then approach AA and say pay up!

Shorn, I mean this in the best way and i hate agreeing with Schlemiel, but Bushranger is along way from being a tier 1 mine. IMO it isn't even tier 2 at the moment (although it might be when phase 2 drilling and the JORC reports).
It's comments like this which turn off professional investors. XTR becomes just another shouty, gobby junior mining.
If anybody apart from Colin and the team thought this was a Tier 1, it would be written about all over the place....of course we could have everybody else wrong and Colin right? but I doubt the team in Australia would mention anything about this being a Tier 1.

This isn't going to popular, but I always write what i think, regardless of whether it will be liked or not.
Colin if your reading this, that was a bl****y trainwreck.
Your idea that the company can release whatever it wants re a DCF valuation internally is untrue and it makes XTR seem like a noddy company. I am sure you know that regulators are very very sharp about valuations and it would certainly be illegally to issue an internal valuation like this. I could go around telling everybody that my house is worth £2m, however it's meaningless unless an independent valuation has taken place. Likewise we have JORC, 103's, independent FS's for a reason.
If an investor won't invest for a 100-200% return, they won't invest for a 500% return, and if they won't invest it's because they don't believe the company.
The world of Juniors is littered with dozen's of companies with 1-2bn NPV's and Market Caps of 10-50m, why? because the valuation is meaningless if it's not backed up.
BCN, has an NPV8 of $800m, however it's been brought for a pathetic £300m by the Chinese. I am sure SOLG will likewise be brought for far less than full value by BHP. The issue both companies had was a lack of faith by the Markets, which makes a takeover price far cheaper. I for one don't want the SP to be 8p come Easter, then AA to launch a bid for 12p, at a 50% premium.
To convince the Market, Xtract needs to have faith in the project, (which i have) to trust that an independent valuation will be reflective as a starting point. Stop with the hyperbole - let the results and the models do their talking, issue more independent reports, scoping, valuation, JORC. Get at least one broker to start issuing their own independent valuations (ideally we would have 2 or 3 broker reports). Improve the governance of the company.
If you and I want to have a company valued at 200-300m then you will need more professional investors, so lets improve the professionalism. You've done an amazing job with the speed and direction of the company and it's exploration, now lets tell the world about it in the best way we can - which isn't bragging about doing your own valuations etc.

TheIceberg

Jamie, according to https://www.valmin.org/docs/VALMIN_Code_2015_final.pdf
DCF\income can't be used until FS is completed, which makes sense as you need accurate financial information to base it on.
It is true that infe. Is needed to produce a FS as a minimum. With measured preferred.
It might be possible to used a scoping study to get financial figures,but it would have to be the best in the world and even then I am not sure many would accept it.
Brooke is a perpetual liar, it's the figures in the accounts that matter here, hard firm approved financial figures. Nobody believes what ceos of small companies say outside of an RNS. It's the independent assays, figures, valuations that folk believe.