Andrada Mining acquisition elevates the miner to emerging mid-tier status. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I didn't find CB's rebuttal quite as outrageous as others. The last two interviews resulted in a complete SP battering so zero market response seems like a result... hopefully this is absolute bottom with zero value for Bushranger at present.
I personally think Steve did a difficult job coming up with a useable model/calculation given the lack of consistent data. I don't agree with his negative NPV conclusion though because I would go with a much low opex (for reasons previously explained) but, as iceberg said, the model is there for everyone to play around with and to challenge his calculations and assumptions... so thanks for that Steve.
On that note, it would be good to hear the views of iceberg and other shareholders with more knowledge and experience. The capex and opex assumptions seem to me to be the weak points in Steve's model (needs a lot more information and data to be much more than guesses) but it would be good to try and form a collective view (or range) and feed that into the model to see what it does to the NPV.
One last thing. I do not think the demonisation of Steve would be complete without an honorary name change. Henceforth, I propose he is know as Steve666. You devil, you.
Steve4077. Sir, in an earlier post today you stated the following in response to CB comments "Twice said there was 1.1m tons of copper, when there is actually 922k tons at 0.08% Cu according to the XTR RNS."
I had assumed that CB was referring to the contained total CuEq tons and not just the Cu, but what are you referring to with "922k tons at 0.08% Cu" ?? 922k tons at 0.08% Cu is less than 74k tons of Cu. Where in the XTR RNS did you see those numbers?
the multiplier effects of being - not to mind a lot - somewhat off on key driver parameterS of any model can be more problematic again re the accuracy of the overall outputs of a model imho
Freck - It is not CB deliberately being misleading. He interchanges Cu Eq with Cu a bit like he does Bushranger and Racecourse, which are different things too. At the last interview, he also referred to the resource in ounces instead of tons. I find the inaccuracies somewhat niggling but I don't think it is going to change any time soon and I don't think we should read too much into it.
To Stevemocal - CB certainly does mix things up from time to time which I agree, is somewhat niggling. My original question to Steve 4077, was where did he get his numbers from?
I am concerned that CB may not be the only person mixing things up.
"922k tons at 0.08% Cu" ?? 922k tons at 0.08% Cu is less than 74k tons of Cu. Where in the XTR RNS did you see those numbers?
The RNS had a table that breaks down the resource by cut-off and grade. The 1.1m tons is for 512mt at a cut-off of 0.1% CuEq and includes both copper and gold. The copper grade is 0.18% so 512mt x 0.18% = 922k tons of copper. The gold grade is 0.05 g/t. Converting that into 'copper equivalent tonnage' accounts for the other 178k tons. The 0.01% CuEq cut-off is a combination of copper and gold grades, so with gold accounting for 18%, the copper grade cut-off is approximately 0.082%. Hence, 922k tons of copper at a 0.08% cut-off.
Its becoming difficult to see the woods through the trees.. very hazy indeed.
Sell the dam thing so we can all move on.
Steve, I think your calculation is wrong because you multiply the copper by the minimum grade cut-off (the 0.1%) and then after that you ALSO multiply the copper again by the maximum amount (0.22% from RNS or 0.18% in your calc).
What the RNS is saying, is that the copper will be between 0.1% (the cut-off/minimum grade) and 0.22% (the estimated actual grade).
If you take the 512mt and multiply it by the 0.22% copper grade, there is your 1.1m tons that Colin Bird keeps mentioning, and it is confirmed in the last sentence below.
Here is a direct quote from their most recent press release:
"...Says after the completion of the drilling programme, independent consultants Measured Group Party Ltd, updated the historic inferred mineral resource estimate to 512 metre tonnes at 0.22% CuEq, at a cut-off of 0.1% CuEq. This contains 1.1 metre tonnes of copper equivalent metal and classified as indicated and inferred in accordance with JORC."
The curse of the CB interview strikes again.
Yep
Looks like about 50/50 buys to sells. Maybe more buys slightly. But down 6%
0.5% of shares in issue sold
Great work Jumpstreet…..I concur with your workings. Steve’s calculations indeed appear flawed, so it’ll be interesting to hear his thoughts on the matter (ideally, pretty quickly). I think you owe the board that much, Steve.
Steve 4077, in your earlier post today you stated "922k tons at 0.08% Cu, according to an XTR RNS". Now you appear to have confirmed that that those numbers were not actually in an RNS, only that you have been able to use your maths (which others have questioned) to slice and dice the number to come up with the following "Hence, 922k tons of copper at a 0.08% cut-off".
There is a vast difference between those two statements, like 848,000 tons of Cu. The subtle insertion of "cut-off" and exactly where Cu is used make the world of difference. Maybe the Company is best placed to make all technical announcements and any assumptions.
Taking two numbers provided by the company and multiplying or dividing them is not inventing new numbers - its called maths. If the company says it has 512mt at 0.18% copper, then it is saying there is 922k tons of copper. Which part of that is invented?
Interesting comment from Colin in the Roast podcast: “I’m sure there’s 2Mt there if it were fully drilled out” (or words to that effect).
I remember Colin saying in one of the interviews that we wouldn't need to fully drill it as it doesnt work like that. I hope that is still the case.
>> Steve, I think your calculation is wrong because you multiply the copper by the minimum grade cut-off (the 0.1%) and then after that you ALSO multiply the copper again by the maximum amount (0.22% from RNS or 0.18% in your calc).
I was trying to avoid posting again today, but this doesn't seem to want to die.
I am not multiplying by 0.1% anywhere - I'll put the calcs in several lines so you can tell me which one is wrong
Firstly, here is the RNS
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/racecourse-prospect-updated-mineral-resource-k5dfrxajgs0ls13.html
1) Here are the numbers in the RNS for the 0.1 CuEq line
Cut-off: 0.10 CuEQ
Copper Grade: 0.18% Cu
Gold Grade: 0.05 g/t
Silver Grade: 0.72 g/t
Copper Equivalent Grade: 0.22%
Tonnage 512mt
Contained CuEq 1.1mt
Just in case you are not aware, all the cut-off means is that ore below that grade is ignored - it is not part of the calculation in any other way
2) 512mt x 0.18% Copper Grade = 922k tons of copper
3) 512mt x 0.05 g/t = 25.6m g = 903k oz of gold.
4) 512mt x 0.72 g/t = 369m g = 13m oz of silver.
The RNS states that copper is $8800, Gold is $1800 and Silver is $24.
5) Therefore 903k ounces of gold is worth 184k tons of copper and 13m oz of silver is worth 1477 tons of copper, which gives us total value equal to 1.1m tons of copper, also known as 'copper equivalent metal'
I don't see anything wrong with anyone's maths... you're just calculating different things.
Steve - Perhaps it would help if you could explain why you think it is important to separate the Cu Eq figure in the new JORC, into the separate copper and gold components? Is it just to allow comparison to the earlier JORC (2018) or are you implying there is something more sinister behind it e.g. Xtract trying to hide something?
It is worth noting that the buy-back clause refers to contained Cu Eq, even though AA's own JORC (2018) had the copper and gold quantified separate. If anything, it was surely AA that prompted the use of Cu Eq as the measure?
Anyway, enough of this for today. There is beer to be drunk and football to be watched. Evening All.
Hi Steve - I want to split it out to allow a fair comparison with the original JORC, which has been my main focus in the last couple of days. I think the modelling debate has distracted a lot from that point. If my JORC calcs are correct and there is only 10-15% extra copper compared to the original JORC, then any model is not going to be far off the XTR conceptual model for last year, especially as the additional copper is lower grade. Maybe I should take the XTR numbers from July 2021 and convert the original JORC into CuEq - that might be a clearer approach.
Agree on the football and beer :)
I can show you his exact calculation and where he has gone wrong vs the actual calc:
Steves calculation is as follows:
- Then take the above 512 and multiply by the 0.18% (expected actual grade) = 0.512*0.0018 = 0.9216m
- Multiply 0.9216 by 1,000 to convert from millions to k = 0.0009216*1,000 = 921.6 (or 922 rounded)
- Multiply the 922 by 0.08% (cut-off/minimum grade) = 922*0.0008
There are two mistakes in this approach, one is the minimum cut-off used has been stated as 0.08% when it is actually 0.1% as per the most recent RNS, and the 0.18% (expected) should be 0.22%.
But the biggest mistake by far, is multiplying the expected and THEN the minimum AS WELL.
The actual calculation should be minimum vs expected:
- Expected is 0.22%, so take 512m multiplied by 0.22% = 512*0.0022 = 1.1264
- Minimum is 0.1%, so take 512m multiplied by 0.1% = 512*0.001 = 0.512
So, the expected amount of copper is 1.1m and the absolute minimum copper would be 0.512m or 512k (not even close to the 74k Steve has calculated, because of his double multiplication)!
This reconciles with Colin Bird's rhetoric around having 1.1m and also reconciles with the most recent news release from 23rd November, titled "Xtract Resources notes updated mineral resource estimate", if you want to double check these numbers for yourself.
*** packet out
512mt at .22% = 1.1264 mt copper equiv
191mt at .33%=630,0000 t copper equiv
A capx of of 1bn $ processing costs of 3$ -6$ per kg $8000/t copper
1.1264 mt at 90% recovery is say 1mt
Total value of contained copper equiv is $8bn
From the above we have more than half the contained copper in the higher grade core.
Taking not account 90% recovery we have 567,000t with a value of $4.536bn
Weighting the capx on he higher grade say $1bn we have a value of $3.536bn for half the mine to balance the books on lesser grades.
The production costs can vary but take the average $4.5/kg we have a cost per tonne of $4500
I note colin mentioned the mine in Sweden which I believe is fully automated so production costs could come down considerably
that would give a profit of $3500 per tonne copper
Going back we have 567,000 contained copper with a $3500 /t profit equivalent of $1.985bn profit for half
the mine.
I could go on with lower grades but my point is that there is a feasable mine no one has a crystal ball and predict prices but with fixed capex and production costs any incease in poc puts multiples on the bottom
line.
As you can see anyone can come with what they want by manipulating data.
I stand to be corrected on the above and put out for discussion.
I am sorry, but what are you talking about? In which line of my post do I:
" Multiply the 922 by 0.08% (cut-off/minimum grade) = 922*0.0008"
Given your posting history from yesterday, I suspect this is actually an attempt to confuse the issue, rather than an an inability to read or do maths.
Steve you literally posted this on the 8th November:
I think everyone that has done their research is already invested. With no news for now, there is nothing to spark new investors, so the share price drifts down down on minimal volume. While it might have fallen to 3p-ish, the number of shares actually sold in recent weeks is only a small percentage of the total held. The MMs try to generate activity (which is how they make money) by moving the price around - usually down - far more than the trading activity would suggest.
Once news drops and sparks wider interest (assuming it is generally in line with expectations), the price is likely to move up rapidly, which is to the advantage of those already invested. Currently, its a test of patience and faith in your own research.
OK, I am giving up on this for now - I don't think the recent posters and I have a common frame of reference :)
Lets see what theiceberg comes up with, as he us a neutral party. I think we can agree, regardless of current beliefs, that we are all eager to see the new updated model.
Yes, I did post that on 8th November. Note the line about "Once news drops and sparks wider interest (assuming it is generally in line with expectations),"
The 23rd November RNS provided new data that was plainly NOT in line with expectations. I'm an analyst. If the expected data changes, then my conclusions change too.
Looks like you've got yourself in a sticky situation Steve, trying to manipulate share prices can land you in some serious trouble.
Now you're fighting for your life in the comments, but it is clear that you did this for your own benefit, from all your previous rhetoric about MM and your dodgy calculations that you are now trying to backtrack on.
Even the CEO isn't happy with you and is not going to take the trashing of the company SP lightly, so you better cross your fingers and hope it doesn't get escalated, because you know what that will mean...
A reminder, since you seem to be so forgetful about everything you have said, here's you today at 15:30, Steve...
"922k tons at 0.08% Cu" ?? 922k tons at 0.08% Cu is less than 74k tons of Cu. Where in the XTR RNS did you see those numbers?
The RNS had a table that breaks down the resource by cut-off and grade. The 1.1m tons is for 512mt at a cut-off of 0.1% CuEq and includes both copper and gold. The copper grade is 0.18% so 512mt x 0.18% = 922k tons of copper. The gold grade is 0.05 g/t. Converting that into 'copper equivalent tonnage' accounts for the other 178k tons. The 0.01% CuEq cut-off is a combination of copper and gold grades, so with gold accounting for 18%, the copper grade cut-off is approximately 0.082%. Hence, 922k tons of copper at a 0.08% cut-off.