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.
Steve - I still think it is just another inaccuracy.
If you have a cut-off for copper alone, then you will end up classifying good ore (that has low amounts of copper but high amounts of gold, silver etc) as waste. And there is no other cut-off grade mentioned for other metals.
Steve - last comment on this as I think I am just annoying people by continuing the debate. Ultimately, I can only go off what was written in the RNS by XTR. One clearly states a Cu cut-off and the other states CuEq. I've gone back and looked at other RNS and the only place I can a mention of a CuEq cut-off is in the latest RNS. It is possible that XTR are simply inconsistent in their reporting.
Steve - They are consistently inconsistent.
One other clue to it being an inaccuracy is that the phase 1 and 2 drilling went into a lot of virgin ground and extended the footprint of the original ore body. I simply cannot see how those extensions only added 15% more copper.
Hello all.
Thanks again to iceberg for his opinion. I still hold all my shares and will continue to hold. The resource is not shrinking it is still getting bigger. I'm holding for the pay off .
Looks like a few who sold out with the scaremongering have possibly jumped into AFP.
lol
Thanks for the update iceberg. It's proved useful to me
Thanks Iceberg, very interesting
My take away's:
Iceberg quote “ We don’t know yet whether it will be economically viable, however I think it should be.”
so, far too many unknows for anyone to be come to a definitive conclusion with info and resources we have.
Worst case, If its not economical at current POC (iceberg says it should be) , I think its highly likely that it will be later on with a higher POC. Xtract could be seen as nothing more than a play against future copper prices.
If you believe in that story, then just wait and hold. That's what I will be doing.
Andrew: "far too many unknows" ... lets hope they are known unknowns. Its the unknown unknowns I worry about!
"Xtract could be seen as nothing more than a play against future copper prices" ... I am taking a long hard look at that to diversify a little. Not without risks, as always, but I'm fairly convinced of the bull case for copper, and it may be more of a cert, or a sooner cert, than returns from XTR. Maybe I will hedge with Cu.
It seems to me we have reached the journey where the fork lies ahead and all the debates we have will not give us a decisive path. However we do have a 50/ 50 chance of getting it right. That's not bad odds of either it being economically viable or economically unviable. I guess we'vw all had a lot worse odds in many things throughout life including investing in AIM. For me i'm happy to take those odds and all must make their own choices taking into account individual circumstances. Good luck in your decision making.
Docit - I think this is so over-sold now that not only do we have zero value attributed to Bushranger but not enough value to the African assets. If people haven't sold already, there seems little point doing it now!
AIMHO. DYOR
For sure Steve. I guess this will hovver at these levels until some form of direction is seen, which is then we will see a decent bounce back. Too much debate has taken place the last few days and all are directionless. I guess all we have at this stage is instinct to go by.
In case anyone needs a reminder, this is what was said in the July 2021 conceptual open pit modelling RNS:
"Optimal believe that the economic recovery and processing of ore with low grades between 0.1 - 0.2% Cu is pivotal for the economic viability of the Racecourse project ........Overall, Optimal believe that taking account of the project's large size and relatively low grade, conditions should support the efficient and productive mining of the deposit. Optimisation of the processing plant capacity, capital cost, metallurgical recoveries and operating cost will improve the economic viability......"
So the company and their advisors were always aware of the drivers of viability and already had thoughts 18m ago about where they'd look to try to achieve this.
IWTO - It is also worth reminding people that the study was done based on the 2018 JORC, which had 470kt of contained Cu Eq (the resource increased by lowering the cut-off as Steve pointed out in his analysis). We now have 1.1mt of contained Cu Eq and the vast majority of it - as far as I can tell by comparing the phase 2 drill hole map with the map/pit presented in the webinar - will sit within the walls of the conceptual open pit used in the study. So that's 350mt of waste dirt (that was coming out anyway) converted to pay dirt, which will yield an extra 630kt of contained Cu Eq. And the resource is likely to increase with further refining and the inclusion of Ascot (which is open in all directions).
Personally, I find it hard to see how a 134% increase in Cu Eq within what will be an almost identical pit, would do anything but significantly improve the economics. But everyone should do their own research and make their own decisions.
GLA who are holding until we reach the finish line! Are we nearly there yet Dad?!?
>>>> "not sure how long they have in the contract to deliberate now Colin's said the decision to mines been made."
I don't think voicing the 'decision to mine' is what gets things going. The DtM is a bit more complex than that, it is confusingly named. The Decision to Mine is a package of data, reports, economic viability studies, etc, and this would have have to all be presented to AA to invoke that clause and get them assessing the asset.
I expect what Colin is saying is that XTR has decided to present this Decision to Mine once compiled fully, as opposed to hitting that other trigger, the 2MT target.
Investing 100: like you, I had a top up this morning. Even if BR was worthless, at these prices there's money to be made on African assets alone.
The way I see this working out assuming RC is not a money pit (to be proven one way or the other) is that further drilling will occur on Ascot to delineate its boundary more clearly. It may well be that Ascot is the real source of wealth and would be mined first making the mining of RC worthwhile. However, this is all going to take more time...
There have been a number of reasons why the sp tanked in a week, obviously CBs inability to manage expectations and posts stating that the mine will not be economic unless POC is at $11K+ , are two reasons.
However, I think the third reason is the confusion term "Decision to mine"
When CB stated this, many seemed to think (and some even said it ) they interpreted this as xtract intent on actually building the mine with a JV. One of CB's interviews even reinforced this view with a comment " we will need help with this"
Many understandably sold as they didnt want to wait so long (they thought), before they would start to see a return.
I think the DtM is best seen as more of a business plan that you would submit to a bank to secure a loan to show that you have a viable business plan and when and by how much profit will be made. For us its about triggering the buy-out option not an intent to actually build a mine. IMHO we are happy for AA to say no so we can go to the market.
IMHO those three factors all hit the share at the same time and caused the drop, then you add on a fourth - the fear factor of some panicking thinking "I'm going to lose ll my money" so sold.
So a four punch combination which put the sp on the floor . Down but not out !
Xtract sp is like Tyson Fury ...and looked what happened to him after he got up :)
We don't have to fight Derek Chisora do we? SP is going tank if that happens
Investing. The decision to mine hasn't been made yet, at least not officially, only in a cosy podcast chat. We need an RNS to be certain