Member Info for theiceberg

I agree Steve, is why made the comments I made when I used the valmin valuation. It’s the valuation method used in the contract with AA to give a starting point before a host of value added. It had to be the low figure and the high figure and is at the end o the day an accounting procedure to judge fair value from which true value to the buyer can be determined.
I said it was meaningless as it can’t possibly be the value that AA will pay.
But it does provide a minimum.
Hope that made sense as I am stuck waiting in the queue at the supermarket

For comparison, CGP issued a new valuation for the alpala project back in Dec 2020.(when they were infighting with Nick and wanted to big up the value after SOLG s failed bid.
This came out at a price of about 3p per lb for copper after exchange rates.
If we use that for a 2MT at bushranger we get about 13p a share fully capitalised. Factor in that alpala is more developed, but negatively has quite a bit higher risk. Then 18p seems ballpark right.
The importance here is that this isn't a sale price, that's not what these valuations generally decide. It's an accounting figure....
Why is this important?
Well if xtract pays the £50k to get an independent valuation like this done.then in its accounts it can put bushranger down as an asset with a value of £130m.
That will certainly get the notice of funds who will look at the book value and,if xtract isn't valued at 10-13-18p, the discrepancy of value.

It's all really positive 're the share price as we move into next year as will be the African revenue. The market likes figures like this that it can hang a value on and convince HNW clients to buy.

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.

The price was £600m I think, it does have feasibility studies, measured resources, 200,000m of drilling and well over a 100m spent on it though.
The pfs was done by bhp.
Given that apply a 50% reduction for inferred compared to measured it takes it to 300m , I think you you said for 2.8-3.8. If we factor this down to 2.2 for bushranger (which might be more) we get around 200m.
Without comparing the economics it’s difficult to compare directly. But if we allow for the cost of producing the FS etc then maybe 120-150m for bushranger? Ie 12-15p?
Maybe???

Gixxer, I agree 're way off....I expected more. However it is based on projects in that area such as copper hill.
If I were AA I would rock up with this kind of valuation then discussion would begin.
But at the end of the day it's only my thought and it would be good if others looked at the code and found evidence to support different valuations.

Xeiger, i don't think he would accept 5p either,but the valuation code has to, by Australia rules, produce a min and max by a certain set of methods. The minimum is never used, however it has to be included.

I might or might do a blog on this, 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 for those interested a discount of 50% is applied (industry standard) for inferred-indicated over measured with a PFS.
Obviously I've had to multiple up to use current prices of $4.4lb. Examples included grades of .35% Cu. What's notable is that the price paid when transactions have taken place has varied massively from as little as A$5 per tonne to well over 100. It's also notable that there has not been a transaction of anything approaching 2MT CU in the useful time frame.
However for what it's worth, assuming 1bn shares in issue and just the 2.2Mt is Low of 5p a share, a High of 18p a share and a medium value of 10p a share. With Eureka and African Revenue this would give a valuation of 18p a share for the company using a medium value.
This is probably lower than many would have wanted, but lets face it AIM is full of dreamers and over promises (it's what makes it so wonderful).
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, of where we might be value wise once we've done phase 2 drilling, updated the JORC and updated the Scoping study, so maybe around easter next year.
So an investment at 5p sounds pretty good.

It really is just my opinion but 13 and even 14 is akin to putting a few two holes in the very nw of bushranger, right at the end. The chances of hitting .2 copper or above randomly is pretty low, but if chalco is found it kind of means that the actual alteration zone will exist with better mineralization.
Equally 25 is a geo drill to find out whether the alteration is on the sides, at the top, well below the crown, what the intrusion make up is etc.
There is little way the market will understand this, or the fact that I think 13 was actually quite good! :)

In my case and maybe for others, I got some money put aside to maybe buy more, but I am holding off until holes 14 assays and or 25 visuals.there is a fair chance the market will read them incorrectly imo, either too negatively which will give a nice price, or not positively enough in the first few hours giving a nice price.
If enough folks are doing similar I can see why volume is low and why it might drift lower if we have sellers. The other side is that if the sp drops too far it seemed to be 4.9-5p, then folks will buy in as this is a nice entry regardless of any results.

Art, people arnt rude, your just wrong.
We seem to have become a society where everybody is entitled to an opinion, but if you are comparing an apple and a melon, then they are still an apple and a melon. If you try to claim otherwise because your entitled to an opinion does not make it a valid opinion.
It was in the interest of GGP to take ages to get a jorc and also to only get a small one. GGP drilled 26 or so holes in the last quarter - compared to 15 for XTR (rough figures). GGP are exploring several different areas. size for size XTR is actually doing more drilling, regardless of everything else.
Your just wrong ART, regardless of your opinions, unless you want to quote actual facts RE drills running, metres per day, size of exploration area etc.

Art has shown again how a little knowledge can be dangerous.
As has already been said Anglo already had a drill campaign and jorc which we are building on.
Ggp are drilling a resource which by and large is between 1km and 2km underground. So will obviously need to do far more drilling.
They are also block caving so need to be far far more precise about where the mineralisation is.
We are open pitting so it will all get dug up anyway. The drilling is to understand the rough economic value.
The capex and design is not really assay dependent. It’s a single commodity processing plant producing at whatever xxxtpa they want to do.
Of course finding 2MT of copper or 3mt of copper in the same open pit will affect the value.
Utterly bizarre.

Looks like hole 24 is a step out from hole 13 (they were obviously happy with those results and probably the reason why the assays were fast tracked. Hole 24 is 200m or so SE of hole 13, finally hole 24 is 1.5km SE of hole 23. The deposit would still be open to both the SE and NW ends meaning 1.5km to 2km in length being very probably.

There was an assumption that the NW was much deeper as the intrusion dipped down, however the strong mineralization starts at 50-200m and goes down to the bottom of the pit. Huge implications for the open pit design as the NW isn't a costly pain, it just adds value....

When will the market realise.
In my weekend blog I modelled the NW width at 300-400m, however XTR are proving it 500m.
I was also expecting grades of .2 to .3 copper but it looks like 50% higher at least.

I really do like to be conservative and we marshalling 2MT out of the water, making this one of Australia's largest undeveloped. Copper deposits.

A lot of folks don't realise that most mining is pretty boring. 90% of projects are not world class grades. Miners want easy projects, low risk, easy consistent grades, and economical.
They want to turn up, use a simple method of mining, dig it out the ground without 500m of over burden, extract it, process i t using methods that have been around for decades and send the copper sludge cheaply for final processing and smelting. They want whatever they mine to last for decades and just become a solid cash cow.

Bushranger is a godsend for this as long as the tonnage and grades are economical. Which looks likely.

Thanks for the messages, it is just my opinion at the end of the day.
Andrew I've taken it from https://www.google.com/url?q=https://s24.q4cdn.com/156422165/files/doc_presentations/2020/07/Updated/TFPM-Northparkes-Gold-and-Silver-Stream-(2020.07.12).pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjFpavGvPTzAhXIasAKHTXpD5QQFnoECAoQAg&usg=AOvVaw2Hdjj4WyY4w170LbRkJhtU
Which is. 2020 presentation .

steve,
It (the se anom) could be an un mineralised intrusion, most intrusions are un mineralised i.e they won't contain copper or gold. It will predominately be a rich iron pyrite system, where the cooling of the hydro thermals were such that no copper or gold have been left behind.

Now the good point is that this is unlikely, partly because of the intrusions that exist to the NW, that we know contain copper and gold (bushranger), but also hole 14 was described as "wide interval of sulphide mineralisation"
It would be unlikely for the SE anomaly to be barren if it contained the sulphides on its weaker margin.

We need the detail from 14 to confirm the length of the sulphides(if we get this) and hopefully any Chalco or pyrite intrusion make up.

Again the nice point is that Bushranger looks to be at least 1500km in length, 800-900m depth and 300-400m width making it a monster copper deposit (finger in the air minimum 500mt to 800mt at .3 - .4 currently.
Colin is right to be conservative re the SE anom, until we get a drill actually into the main zone and find the copper veins. He is also right to be optimisitc!

Just IMO.

Sorry wanted to add.
14 was angled but only into the very very margins of the dirty side of the see se anomaly.
I would be amazed if there was much mineralization therr, it's more to see if They hit the geological footprint i.e chalcopyrite or quartz pyrites, rather than any real copper.
If they have drilled and hit anything here it bo des well for the additional holes. Remember this is as close as they could get imo without the extra drill plan permission they needed, which they now ha ve.

They are pretty much as expected i.e bang on fantastic.is
Hole 13 is 600m from hole 10 and over a km from the holes in the NW. It shows how massive this is. Also great that the mineralization continues to be pretty shallow and over double the cut off for the pit.
Hole 13 is pretty hand another over 300m across the deposit.!

Monty,
Still recovering but getting better each day, very surprised it hit me, a 46 year old double vac, like this and my wife 41 even more. But hey ho.
Might do a blog after hole 13 or 14 assays this is the next big milestone.