Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Xtract Resources LSE:XTR London Ordinary Share GB00B06QGC57 ORD 0.01P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 0.0225p 0.02p 0.025p 0.025p 0.02p 0.0225p 1,095,206,323.00 16:19:18
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 0.0 -4.6 -0.1 - 4.49

Xtract Resources (XTR) Latest News (1)

More Xtract Resources News
Xtract Resources Takeover Rumours

Xtract Resources (XTR) Share Charts

1 Year Xtract Resources Chart

1 Year Xtract Resources Chart

1 Month Xtract Resources Chart

1 Month Xtract Resources Chart

Intraday Xtract Resources Chart

Intraday Xtract Resources Chart

Xtract Resources (XTR) Discussions and Chat

Xtract Resources Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
25/2/201719:01XTR Fresh Start178.00
25/2/201716:47Xtract resources3,146.00
25/2/201709:08How many stupid professors do you know?-
24/2/201711:01XTR - Xtract Resources under new Management (Colin Bird and Jan Nelson)1,109.00
24/2/201709:22Xtract ing the urine15.00

Add a New Thread

Xtract Resources (XTR) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
View all Xtract Resources trades in real-time

Xtract Resources (XTR) Top Chat Posts

Xtract Resources Daily Update: Xtract Resources is listed in the Oil & Gas Producers sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker XTR. The last closing price for Xtract Resources was 0.02p.
Xtract Resources has a 4 week average price of 0.02p and a 12 week average price of 0.02p.
The 1 year high share price is 0.24p while the 1 year low share price is currently 0.01p.
There are currently 19,956,546,489 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 1,003,599,184 shares. The market capitalisation of Xtract Resources is £4,490,222.96.
barnetpeter: share prophets say: I started writing this article on Xtract Resources (XTR) this morning and was going to comment on how sentiment was turning and Colin Bird’s straightforward approach in recent RNS’s was to be applauded and then – WHAM - a placing RNS from hell and I’ve had to rewrite the whole piece. Thanks Colin! I had written that although the RNS’s on the Auroch debt settlement, which in essence was just turning the debt into convertible loan notes, and the alluvials deal with Nexus were not game-changers on their own, they were set out clearly and in a no-nonsense way and Colin appeared to be delivering on these small but essential steps towards generating shareholder value. Sentiment was returning and as I was writing in the morning, the share price had reached 0.05p up from a recent low of 0.0125p. I even wrote that Xtract could probably even get a small-ish placing away at these prices to cover working capital needs pending the DFS. It all looked so promising. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a small-ish placing…...and it wasn’t at those prices. At 2.40pm this afternoon, Xtract announced that it had raised £1.88 million (before expenses) by conditionally issuing over 10 billion shares at a price of 0.0185p. 10 BILLION SHARES AT 0.0185p! An absolute body blow for the average PI who thought that things were finally turning for the better. Funnily enough, the share price has crashed back down to a closing price of 0.0225p. The whole thing now just reeks of an elaborate pump and dump. Why was so much needed and why couldn’t Colin have taken advantage of the higher price in the market? Apparently the proceeds will be used: “… fund the completion of the Definitive Feasibility Study, extending Environmental Impact Assessment on all alluvials within the Manica project, further consolidation within the Manica Area, and for general working capital purposes. In addition, the Company is presently reviewing a number of investment opportunities to diversify its interests.” To fund the completion of the DFS?? It’s due by the end of the month - how much more can be spent on that? Why do you need to do an environmental report on the alluvials? I thought the idea was for contract miners to turn up with their spades and get on with it. In other news, Auroch has been taking advantage of the recent liquidity converting $200,000 of its convertible together with various fees at a price of 0.0132p for a mere 1.5 billion shares. Also, $110,000 of the amount raised will be used to pay off part of Auroch’s remaining convertible. Yorkville has also taken advantage of the pump. The equity swap deal that was put in place in November 2016 has now been terminated with one final payment from Yorkville of £240,000. I estimate that Xtract would have received no more than £400,000 in total from Yorkville under this deal (rather than the more than double that anticipated) and, remember, it issued 3.5 billion shares under that deal. The remaining Yorkville shares have now also all been placed by Beaufort so that overhang has gone. The number of shares in issue here is now totally out of control. I estimate that by the time Auroch has converted all of the debt outstanding to it, there will be around 40 billion shares in issue. What’s the record? With the only asset today being Manica, even if one thought that was worth £20 million, and that’s a lot more than Xtract paid for it, it puts a cap on the share price at 0.05p. Accordingly, the current share price of 0.25p feels as good as it can get for now until the Manica DFS and financing plans are set out but I wouldn’t be surprised to see it going lower as some investors may just have had enough for now and sentiment may turn negative again. The good news though is that Xtract has some money in the bank for now, although it still has to make the Yorkville debt repayments; the bad news is that it may have lost the shareholder trust that it had spent the last few months trying to rebuild. I hope for your sake the DFS is a belter, Colin.
the stigologist: What are the odds on XTR share price increasing above 0.12 brain cells ?
gunner_coetzer: Have JLP or GLR or XTR brought a mine to profit? In all the companies above there were great promises on many prospects. None of the promises were fulfilled. Name something in the last 7 years that he has done that we can verify with Google. The XTR share price has fallen by over 99%. Who knew? Well, anybody that had followed Colin Bird's record, they knew. The institutions, they all knew. That's why they do not invest in ANY of Colin Bird's companies. Who knew? Everybody but mug-punters! And the mugpunters still believe even though the shares are 99% down.
12bn: 24 October 2016 Xtract Resources Plc Company Update The Board of Xtract Resources Plc ("Xtract" or the "Company") announces that, further to the notification by the Company on 30 September 2016, the Company provides a further update on its Manica Gold Project and an update on its current financing arrangements. Highlights -- Minxcon (Pty) Ltd has been appointed to complete open pit optimisation modelling -- Social element of the Environmental Impact Study commenced -- Manica Alluvial negotiations advancing -- Reduction of corporate overhead to GBP0.65 million from GBP1.61 million per annum with further reductions being considered and where appropriate will be implemented -- All aspects of the Company's financial and technical control being reviewed and changes made where appropriate Colin Bird, Executive Chairman, said: "Our decision to cease funding Minera Polar Limitada against its unsatisfactory operating results for the previous year, together with an unfavorable future prognosis, has stopped serious cash deficit funding requirements. Our focus now is on the Manica mine to determine the capital expenditure required against the optimum technical plan and therefore restore certainty to the Company. Concurrent with the above, we have reduced our operating expenses and overheads to be consistent with a junior resources publicly listed company. During the above work programme we will continue to consider all options with a view to restore shareholder value and the most appropriate way forward. Financing Arrangements The operations of the Group are currently financed through a combination of funds, which the Company has raised from shareholders as well as the following financing arrangements in place, which include a Standby Equity Distribution Agreement ("SEDA") and a Loan Note Facility, as amended ("Loan Note"). Both of these arrangements were entered into with YA Global Master SPV LTD ("YAGM" or "Investor"). The SEDA was entered into with the Company and YAGM on the 26 August 2011, and approved by the Company's shareholders on 12 September 2011, in order to provide funding of up to GBP12.5 million in the form of an Equity Line Facility. Any fund drawdowns by the Company under the SEDA facility are in exchange for the issue to YAGM by the Company of new ordinary shares in the capital of the Company ("Shares") at an issue price that is dependent on the share price and the volume of Xtract shares traded in any given period as set out further below. In addition, each advance cannot exceed the greater of GBP2 million, an amount that would result in YAGM holding more than 2.99% of the entire issued share ordinary capital of Xtract or an amount equal to 300% of the average daily traded value for each of the 10 trading days prior to the Company submitting the notice for an advance. To date the Company has drawn down a total of GBP2.49 million. The SEDA expires on 30 November 2017. On 12 December 2013, the Company entered into the Loan Note agreement pursuant to which YAGM agreed to lend up to US$5 million to the Company. The Loan Note carries an interest of 12% per annum along with a drawdown fee of 8% and each tranche is repayable over a 12-month period. To date a total of US$3.15 million has been drawdown with a total of US$1.85 million of the facility undrawn and available, subject to the prior agreement of YAGM. During May 2016, the Company drew down a total of US$1.65 million under the Loan Note agreement with the repayment period scheduled to commence in July 2016. The Company drew down a further US$0.45 million under the Loan Note agreement in July 2016. On 6 October 2016 the Company made a payment of US$0.26 million against the outstanding balance, which currently amounts to US$1.9 million (before interest). The Company and YAGM have agreed to schedule the outstanding payments (before interest) at the rate of US$0.1 million per month in 2016 and US$0.21 million per month in 2017, with the final repayment by the Company due on 1 August 2017. The next payment to YAGM is due on or before 1st November 2016. The Company also agreed under the Loan Note to provide security to YAGM over the Manica asset, which is subject to the approval of Mozambican Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy. The pledge over the Manica license will be released on the date on which the amount owed to YAGM is reduced to below US$0.9 million. As previously announced Auroch Minerals NL ("Auroch") and the Company are in discussions with regards to the final settlement of US$1.65 million owed by the Company to Auroch pursuant to the Company's acquisition of Manica in June 2015. Outlook During September 2016 the Company announced it would no longer continue to provide finance for Minera Polar Limitada, the owner of the Chepica mine and the Directors, in taking this decision have now stopped the severe financial haemorrhaging suffered over the last year. As is common with early producing companies, the Company raises finance for its activities in discrete tranches to finance its activities for limited periods only and further funding will be required from time to time to finance those activities. The Directors would then expect for the funds to be raised through project finance funding, the current SEDA, Loan Note and further equity fund raising or a combination thereof. This announcement contains inside information for the purposes of Article 7 of EU Regulation 596/2014. Enquiries: Xtract Resources Colin Bird, Executive +44 (0)20 3416 Plc Chairman 6471 Michael Cornish +44 (0)207628 Beaumont Cornish Felicity Geidt 3369 Email: [email protected].uk +44 (0)207 382 Beaufort Securities Jon Belliss 8300 SEDA Equity Line Facility As previously announced in August 2011, the principle terms of the SEDA are as follows. The number and timing of advances to be made pursuant to the SEDA shall be at the discretion of the Company but the Company cannot make more than one advance every ten trading days without prior agreement with the Investor, and advances made must not exceed the advance amounts, as defined in the SEDA. Advances are subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions precedent including there being no breach of warranties, no material adverse change in respect of the Company and no material breach by the Company of the covenants and obligations of the SEDA. The Shares will be issued pursuant to the SEDA at a price equal to 95 per cent. of the lowest daily VWAP of the Ordinary Shares for the 10-trading day period following an advance notice ("Pricing Period") that is greater or equal to the minimum acceptable price set by the Company. The minimum acceptable price may not be more than 95 per cent of the VWAP of the Ordinary Shares on the date immediately prior to the advance notice. The advance amount will automatically be reduced by up to 10 per cent. for each trading day during the Pricing Period that the VWAP is below the minimum acceptable price. Loan Note As previously announced in December 2013, the principle terms of the Loan Note are as follows. Under the Loan Note, the Company and YAGM may mutually agree to draw down additional tranches. The Loan Note requires that, in relation to each tranche borrowed by the Company pursuant to the Loan Note, the Company will issue YAGM with new warrants to subscribe (at an exercise price equal to 200 per cent. of the 5 day volume weighted average price of Shares ("VWAP") following the advance of that tranche to the Company) for such number of Shares as would result in the aggregate exercise price on the full exercise of those warrants being 20 per cent. of the amount advanced in the relevant tranche. Each such warrant shall be exercisable for a period of with 3 years from the date of issue of the warrant. ENDS
gunner_coetzer: For those of you who don't know, here is how a SEDA loan works: The SEDA company lends $10m to the borrower (lets call them XTR). They charge a fee for this and a rate of interest between 10% and 15%. They can not demand that the company pays the loan in cash. Instead they short sell shares in XTR and then later cover their position by buying shares from XTR. To keep things simple, Imagine that the XTR share price was 100p. The SEDA Company sell 1 million shares at 100p in week 1. This knocks the price down to 90p They then sell 1 million shares at 90p in week 2 This knocks the price down to 80p. They then sell enough shares to keep the price at 80p for a week (perhaps 200k). They now buy shares from XTR (new issuance) at a 7% discount to the average price of the last 5 days (80p) thus paying 74.4p per share. 2,200,000 shares at 74.4p = £1.687m This £1.687m now gets knocked off the outstanding loan. The SEDA company had sold the shares for a total of £1m + £0.9m + £0.16m = £2.06m Thus they made a profit of £2.06m - £1.687m = £373,000 in 3 weeks. they took no risk. If they had knocked the share price down by more, they would have made a larger profit. They also got paid the interest and the fees. As is blatantly evident and has been proven in every case of a SEDA loan, the company's share price gets splattered by the SEDA selling. Its in their interest to do so.
12bn: gunner_coetzer17 Oct '16 - 18:58 - 2276 of 2298 0 0 The share price can not rise whilst Yorkville have a SEDA facility open. Ask freedom97 what happened when Jubilee platinum had a SEDA loan with them. The share price got smashed by about 90%. Posters claimed that Colin Bird said that he didn't expect them to behave the way that they did and if he had known, then he would never have dealt with them. It is in Yorkville's interest to smash the share price They sell short and then buy back at a discount to the share price just after they finish their selling. The more they smash the sp, the less they pay to replace their short position. I know that, Colin knows that and freedom knows that. Every time the price shows strength, they go at it again. They say that they have a £10m loan, but in reality these SEDA deals just mean that it is a maximum of £10m payment for shares to cover those that they have shorted. That is an awful lot of shares for a company with a £3m market cap. In reality, the amount of shares that they will eventually buy will be an order of magnitude les than this because the company can not issue all these shares without getting new authorities from share holders. Freedom97. I would welcome your views on how this decimated the share price of Jubilee and if you see anything different here.
gunner_coetzer: The share price can not rise whilst Yorkville have a SEDA facility open. Ask freedom97 what happened when Jubilee platinum had a SEDA loan with them. The share price got smashed by about 90%. Posters claimed that Colin Bird said that he didn't expect them to behave the way that they did and if he had known, then he would never have dealt with them. It is in Yorkville's interest to smash the share price They sell short and then buy back at a discount to the share price just after they finish their selling. The more they smash the sp, the less they pay to replace their short position. I know that, Colin knows that and freedom knows that. Every time the price shows strength, they go at it again. They say that they have a £10m loan, but in reality these SEDA deals just mean that it is a maximum of £10m payment for shares to cover those that they have shorted. That is an awful lot of shares for a company with a £3m market cap. In reality, the amount of shares that they will eventually buy will be an order of magnitude les than this because the company can not issue all these shares without getting new authorities from share holders. Freedom97. I would welcome your views on how this decimated the share price of Jubilee and if you see anything different here.
12bn: richpoorkid 21 Jun'16 - 10:56 - 528 of 538 0 0 Help me out here please? The story seems to be good but the share price is in free fall. WHF is going on?///////// Basically XTR had issued shares to 2 companies,Auroch and MTI,they both had an interest in the successful development of Manica gold mine and alluvial deposits. MTI decided to buy Manica lock stock and barrel and so no longer had a need in owning XTR shares to keep their interest in Manica. Auroch only interest in XTR was also Manica,they sold it to XTR and so wanted a stake in future profits from it. Now that MTI has agreed to buy Manica both these companies reasons to hold XTR shares vanishes,so they both sold or are selling. This has driven the share price down lower and lower until it is at this rock bottom level,imo. The share price will bounce far but probably when the supply of shares is exhausted,which won't be apparent until the share price shoots up! The trick is buying at the bottom for the bounce but if you wait for certainty then the share price will have already risen far,imo.
12bn: NS Number : 3765A Xtract Resources plc 07 June 2016 7 June 2016 Xtract Resources Plc ("Xtract" or "the Company") Final Results Xtract Resources Plc (AIM:XTR) announces its final results for the year ended 31 December 2015, a year in which the Company achieved significant milestones in order to deliver on its growth objectives and shareholder value. Financial highlights -- Revenue received from concentrate GBP0.35m (2014: GBP1.14m) -- Net loss of GBP4.58m (2014: GBP2.95m) -- Administrative and operating expenses of GBP2.43m (2014: GBP2.34m) -- Project costs of GBP0.14m (2014: GBP0.21m) -- Cash of GBP3.76m (2014: GBP0.16m) -- Net assets of GBP7.55m (2014: GBP1.60m) Operational highlights -- Acquired the Manica Gold project -- Successfully addressed flexibility problems at Chepica Gold mine -- Raised equity and debt capital to advance all projects -- Advanced Manica BFS on time and within schedule Corporate highlights -- Strengthened management team -- Further strengthened strategic alliance with MTI Jan Nelson, CEO of Xtract Resources commented: "In 2015 momentum continued and the team has made significant progress to deliver on our 5-year plan of becoming profitable gold producer. We are 3 years into this journey and are confident that we will deliver on our vision within the remaining 24 months. We have resolved the flexibility issues at the Chepica mine and continue to invest capital to grow our production profile. The Manica asset will allow us to realise significant cash flow that will enable us to execute on our strategy and deliver shareholder value without any significant dilution." The Annual Report will be posted to shareholders today, including Notice of the Annual General Meeting of Xtract Resources Plc which will be held at the offices of Fladgate LLP, 16 Great Queen Street, London WC2B 5DG on Thursday, 30 June 2016 at 11:00am. Enquiries: +44 (0)20 3416 Xtract Resources Plc Jan Nelson, CEO 6471 Derrick Lee +44 (0)131 220 Cenkos Securities plc Beth McKiernan 6939 +44 (0)207 382 Beaufort Securities Jon Belliss 8300 +44 (0)20 7796 8647 St James's Corporate +44 (0)7798 Services Limited Phil Dexter 634398 +44 (0)20 7193 Justine James / John 7463 Bick +44 (0) 7525 Gable Communications [email protected] 324431 Chairman's Statement Dear Shareholder, In 2015 momentum continued and the team has made significant progress to deliver on our 5-year plan of becoming a profitable gold producer. We are 3 years into this journey and are confident that we will deliver on our vision within the remaining 24 months. We have reviewed several projects in the period under review but I will focus on the Manica project and Chepica mine as these in particular were expected to enable us to add value for shareholders through capital appreciation and physical gold production. On 29 June 2015 Xtract announced the acquisition of the Manica gold project in Mozambique from Auroch, an Australian listed Company. The acquisition was by cash and shares with a total consideration of US$12.5 million. The preliminary figures produced by Auroch suggested that the mine could produce revenues of some US$55 million per annum with pay back taking less than 3 years. The total life of the project was expected to be 8 years of which half would be from surface mining and half from underground. During the period under review the Company made certain revisions to the deal structure as it carried out further due diligence with a view to optimising metallurgy and extending mine life. The Company has sought to add value to the Manica project throughout the time of its ownership. As part of the funding for the acquisition Xtract raised a total of GBP4.4 million at 0.3p per ordinary share. The Company recognised that there was an opportunity for alluvial gold to be mined as a separate venture and consequently on the 20 October 2015 Xtract entered into an agreement with MTI to work a separate project on a joint venture basis which would come into effect upon completion of the transaction. In essence the project required that MTI finance the capital for the plant whilst Xtract operate the plant and provide funding for such operation. It is envisaged that any profits from the operation will be shared on an equal basis between MTI and Xtract. This agreement was considered in the best interest of Xtract since no new capital had to be found and that the alluvial material would have to be removed in any case to access the proposed open pit workings. The Chepica mine progressed albeit not without some technical challenges and sadly a fatal accident in December 2015 resulted in two fatalities at the mine. The Board and Management were greatly saddened by this incident and for the families and loved ones of the deceased. Following an independent review, the Company was exonerated for any blame or liability in connection with the tragic deaths. The technical challenges at the Chepica mine have been in maintaining sufficient development tunnels in order to supply feed to the processing plant at the required rate. The objective throughout has been to proceed to stoping, i.e. three dimensional mining, as soon as possible. Mine planning required forward knowledge of the gold grades that would be worked during the next five year plan. To this end we embarked on a surface drilling programme which identified and delineated continuing reef systems particularly at the Colin mine. The progress made in improving mining flexibility and building up volume from underground was addressed in the period under review and represents a significant milestone in the development of the mine. The progress made at Chepica was temporarily impacted by the stoppage of the plant due to the reported fatalities, although the mine is now delivering forecasted gold grades as the team has resolved the issues in getting the recoveries in the plant back to the required levels. The team is committed to continuing to improve recoveries and good inroads are being made in this regard. My previous reports have spoken much about the very difficult financing circumstances, commodity prices and poor shareholder perception to natural resource companies of any size. We sense a renaissance within our sector and the Board feels that we must be in a position to take advantage of what might be a very short turn around in prospects. For the last five years we have lived in an environment of too many projects and no money. We believe by this time next year or earlier there will be a reversal whereby funding will become available and project flow will dry up. In May 2016 the Board received an offer from MTI to purchase the entire Manica project for a cash sum of US$17.5 million, subject to due diligence. On 25 May 2016, the Board, after due and careful consideration, accepted the offer. The prime reason for the decision is that a strong cash position will allow Xtract to take best advantage of current opportunities in the mining resource space which may not be available or affordable by the year end. Whilst the Board has considerable confidence in the Manica project there is a consensus opinion that such a cash offer will take the Company into an arena of better earnings and prospects consistent with the expertise of the Board and Management. Finally I would like to thank all of my fellow Directors and Management for their tenacity and sterling work during the period under review up to the point of issuing this annual report. Colin Bird Non- Executive Chairman 6 June 2016 Strategic Report Writing a strategic review to shareholders for the period ending December 2015 is always challenging as a lot has happened at Xtract since the period end. As a result, starting with a review of what has transpired without giving some perspective would not do this annual report or shareholders justice. Therefore I am going to start this report with my view of the future before I put our activities for the year into perspective. The future - where are we going? There are a number of systemic issues that face a junior mining company such as Xtract. It is important for all our stakeholders to understand these issues, as it is these very issues that impact our current and future performance and therefore shape our strategic compass. The bottom line is that we will not realise our vision if these issues are not navigated. Strategy is ultimately about choice as we adapt to realise shareholder value. The timing of when we realise certain deliverables is also influenced by these issues and in turn effect share price and market capitalisation. The first issue is, how do we buy an asset? When building a junior mining company such as Xtract from a position where there are no assets in the Company, the only commodity that we have to trade is our shares. Shares are issued to acquire assets (as a junior normally does not have cash in the bank to buy anything) and then these assets need cash to be operated and developed. This means the company issues more shares to have enough working capital to get to steady state production. Adequate working capital is the second issue that is important. Without enough working capital wrong decisions can often be taken at an operational level. The third issue is single asset risk. Having only one asset means that all one's eggs are in one basket and if something goes wrong then the entire company is at risk. Not every project that is developed becomes a success. One normally cycles through a few projects before one becomes a success. Therefore the Company normally is focused on acquiring more than one project or asset to address this problem. This is obviously done without losing focus. Unfortunately this once again leads to the issue of more shares. The fourth issue is that of operational set-backs and timing. Despite management's best endeavours things do go wrong from time to time that impacts on production delivery. This influences cash flow and therefore requires the company to come to market from time to time to issue more shares to address such cash crunches. Issuing shares causes dilution to existing shareholders, which is typically not well received. To make matters worse, placing shares for cash can often be carried out at a discount to the current share price. The fourth issue is therefore growth (either operational or capital). Share price dilution can only be absorbed if there is growth over a certain period of time. In addition to these internal issues the Company also faces external issues such as fluctuation in commodity prices and global market forces that impact on revenue realised from production. External forces also impact the share price especially in the case of a fluctuation in the gold price. In summary, it is the Board's responsibility to manage risk and navigate the following key issues that ensure that the business remains viable: Issue Approach to mitigate risk ---------------- ---------------------------- Single asset Acquisition of other assets risk ---------------- ---------------------------- Working capital Combination of debt and equity finance ---------------- ---------------------------- Growth Re-cycling assets ---------------- ---------------------------- All of this takes place within a certain time period which guides our shareholders as to how much they are willing to invest (their risk appetite) and what their expectation is in terms of how long before they realise return on their investment. Management must be allowed the flexibility to make certain decisions relating to the issues mentioned above to ultimately arrive at a point where a certain level of shareholder value is returned. Shareholders must also remember that as long as management successfully navigates the issues above, shareholder value is created. This might not be evident immediately or in the short term in for example share price appreciation but it will unlock returns over the medium to long term. Xtract is building a junior gold mining house that will be profitable and be able to fund its future growth. We have not arrived at this point yet but have made considerable progress in getting to this point. A mining company is not built in one year and we have set ourselves a period of 5 years to achieve this. We started this journey in June of 2013 under my leadership and are now 3 years along the path of reaching the goal we set ourselves. This means we have only another 24 months to get to achieving our vision and reaching our destination. I am confident that we will achieve our objectives and the operational summary that follows will clearly map out what has been done to reach our end goal. 2015 was a transitional year for Xtract, one in which we acquired a significant project with the acquisition of the Manica Gold Project in Mozambique and addressed the significant challenges presented to us at Chepica Gold and Copper Mine in Chile. Committed to our strategy we evaluated the copper opportunity at O'Kiep and Carolusberg, which did not meet with our stringent criteria for our acquisition strategy and so elected not to proceed with the acquisition having completed a detailed evaluation of the project. Manica Gold Project, Mozambique The Board was delighted to sign an agreement in June 2015, to conditionally acquire the Manica gold project in Mozambique from Auroch Minerals NL, an ASX listed Company. The acquisition was approved by Auroch shareholders in October 2015 and completed in March 2016, when Xtract received approval from the Mozambican mining authorities. The project was expected to deliver 50koz of gold production when in production, at a cash cost of US$549/oz and has excellent infrastructure. At the time of signing the deal, the project had a JORC Compliant resource of 900koz (9.5Mt @3.01g/t in situ, which has increased to 1.257moz (17.3Mt @2.26g/t) following the independent technical report, completed by Minxcon (Pty) Ltd in May 2016. The BFS remains on track to be completed within Q2 of 2016. Manica Alluvial Gold Project Part of the Manica project included the Manica Alluvial Gold Project, and in October 2015 we signed a Joint Venture Agreement ('JV') with Mineral Technologies International Limited ('MTI') to mine the alluvial project, which it expects will produce c32,000oz gold per annum (16,000oz gold per annum attributable to Xtract). Importantly, MTI will fund the construction of the alluvial gold plant, and Xtract will operate the plant. Gold produced will be attributed on a 50:50 basis and Xtract was to be responsible for the operating costs of the project. Sale of Manica Gold Project - Post reporting period Post the reporting period the Board accepted an offer to sell the Manica asset for US$17,500,000 subject to certain conditions being met. The decision to sell this asset enables the Company to more quickly realise capital growth from the asset without having to raise significant equity or debt capital and therefore incurring significant dilution. Manica represent an example of how management has added value to the project in a very short period of time and have recycled it to acquire other assets that will allow us to realise our vision within 24 months. Should the sale not go through the Board has an alternative strategy that will allow the Company to continue to develop the asset without dilution to shareholders. Chepica Gold and Copper project, Chile Development at Chepica gained good momentum in the first half of 2015, with operations team working strategically in order to create mining flexibility in addition to appointing a contract mining team which led to improved efficiencies and lower operating costs. Over the next few months, development work accelerated, which led to several discoveries of new gold bearing reefs including two at the Salvadori prospect, in March and May, and the Colin prospect in June. Production continued to build steadily and in April the milling capacity at Chepica was increased to 10,000 t/month following the installation and commissioning of a new ball mill and the upgrade of the two existing mills. In April, gold grades increased ten-fold, to over 400g/t, as ore from Salvadori II was processed. We were pleased to renegotiate the earn-in option agreement on Chepica, with payment schedule deferred, and the renegotiation of the option payments remains ongoing. On and off reef development was increased in June, with two additional reefs developed for stoping Due to major earthquake activity on 17 September 2015 (Santiago, 250km north of the mine, was affected by a magnitude 8.3 earthquake) the main access haulage at the Chepica Main prospect was submitted to major stress. Management took the decision that the haulage was unsafe and could not be used or re-supported and, put plans in place to re-develop a new haulage to access the ore-body from a different position. Safety remains a priority and the impact of this was that the main areas ready for stoping would only be accessed in late December. It was with great sadness that we had to report two fatal accidents, which occurred on surface at Chepica in December 2015 and our thoughts and support remain with the families. The Company temporarily shut down the processing plant whilst a risk assessment was carried out. The Inspectors of both Mines and Works were required to sign off on the changes implemented as a result of the risk assessment. Sign off came in early February 2016, following which the processing plant was restarted. This inevitably impacted production in Q1 2016, and the project was expected to mill c30,000 tonnes in Q2 2016 as it got back on track to achieving its production targets. The issue of flexibility with regard to volume at the mine has been resolved and we are now generating enough rock from underground to feed the mills at a rate of 10,000 tons per month. The grade at the mine is also running at expected levels. Recoveries at the mine remains problematic and is one of the key issues we are focusing on at the current time. O'Kiep and Concordia Copper Tailings Projects, South Africa In March 2015, we signed a Deed of Assignment with Mineral Technologies International ("MTI") for an option to acquire the O'Kiep sulphide copper tailings project in the Northern Cape Province of South Africa. The Deed of Assignment was renegotiated in May resulting in a reduced cash payment of US$2.875m, saving 19% of the total consideration due. The terms included the issue of 69,752,768 new ordinary shares of 0.01p to the value of c.US$375,000. On 3 February, 2016 the Company announced that it had received the results from the metallurgical and recovery test laboratory and following a detailed evaluation, concluded that the recoveries are too low to produce a viable copper concentrate. The Board therefore elected not to move ahead with the tailings project and there would be no further liabilities or costs incurred in respect of O'Kiep and Carolusberg. Funding In 2015, Xtract raised a total of GBP9.15 million through three Placings in the first half of the year: -- In March, the Company raised GBP1.75m at 0.15p which enabled underground development work to accelerate at Chepica. -- In May, a second fund raising was completed raising GBP3.0m at 0.25p, which enabled Xtract to make progress with its acquisition strategy as well as for ongoing development at Chepica. In addition, Xtract was able to repay the outstanding balance of its loan agreement with YA Global Master -- The third placing was completed in June, raising GBP4.4m at 0.30p, which was raised as part of the consideration for the Manica acquisition. Outlook We have resolved both the volume and grade problems at the Chepica Mine. Drilling has shown that we have multiple reef systems along strike with a considerable down dip extent. We are almost on reef at the Chepica main adit that we had to re-develop after the earthquake. We have therefore successfully resolved the flexibility issues at the mine and have built the production profile up after the two fatalities that stopped production for almost 3 months. Getting back to the required recoveries in the plant is the last issue we are in the process of resolving at the mine. Despite this we continued to fund all our activities at the mine and advance the completion of the BFS at Manica. The offer for Manica post period will allow us to strengthen the balance sheet considerably and allow significant capital growth that combined with production growth from the Chepica mine will allow us to achieve our stated strategy of becoming a profitable gold mining company within the remaining 24 months we have set ourselves. At the same time we address all the issues mentioned at the beginning of this strategic report that will ensure that the business is able to mitigate all internal and external issues and realise shareholder value. In addition the Board has put in place several alternative plans should the Manica sale not realise as is expected that will allow us to achieve the same result but with slight changes. We are therefore well positioned to create value for our shareholders. In addition the cash from the sale of Manica will allow the Company to capitalise on potential opportunities to add to Xtract's production profile in the future. I look forward to an exciting year for the Company. Thank you to our team and shareholders for your support. Yours sincerely, Jan Nelson
12bn: gilbly 3 Nov'15 - 22:12 - 35060 of 35060 0 0 Glad to read that politics are sorted with the incumbent party returned. Undoubtedly the best decision for Kibo et al and may have saved them 6 months or so pending the re negotiating with new ministers on applications and permissions and licences etc. Although it is currently not reflected in the share price, shame. So hopefully we will maintain our progress on the DFS and head on towards reporting issuing and the all-important FC. The last RNS would appear to fulfil two tasks in one with the drilling to confirm the slope angles of the pit, which is a pre-requisite for the pit design and the recovered core doubling up to provide metallurgical samples for verification of the coal properties for the Power station design. From the web site previous coal tests stated; “The results of petrographic analyses from three samples submitted to an inspectorate laboratory in South Africa classify the coal as medium rank bituminous D coal. This indicates good economic potential of the coal particularly as feed for coal fired electricity generating plants”. So the tests on the specific properties of these samples should be available in about 4 weeks time. Another step forwards for Kibo. There should be plenty of news to look forward to in the coming weeks and months on MCPP. There will of course be plenty of details to be released in the DFS reports for both Mine and Power elements, some of which are itemised in the key operations plan on the web site. Re the ongoing DFS, the coal purchase agreement and the electricity supply agreement and the EIA are all likely to be well advanced if not finalised by now. Also in the list and due Q4 2015 is the securing of the necessary Permits and Licences and Modelling of the Mine and Power Station. The alternative energy investigation re coal to liquids is due Q1 2016. I thought they would be looking to increase confidence levels of the mineral resources through a re-classification, so we may get a statement to this effect. Also I thought that perhaps they may have looked at some random sampling over the remaining area, which has the potential for expansion to bring us up to about 400mt from the present 109mt resource. No doubt further delineation of the resources will come eventually. We have enough to double the power generation to 600MW with two phases to the power station, which is often normal. They build one phase before proceeding to the next phase, if it is not problematical. The power plant may have some teething problems and may not always perform as planned and if it don’t work you don’t build another one that also doesn’t work but incorporate all of the necessary updates and modifications. So sometimes better to finish one phase before deciding on the next. Also it may fail on the performance acceptance tests and a hefty penalty fee may be applicable based on any below par performance. However they can, especially if there is a need, announce that it is their intentions to build two phases, all going well and this may save on granting of permissions and licences etc at a later date and so this then sets out their stall and prepares a clear path for the design and constructions stages. In reality Phase 2, if there is to be one, should be built quicker than phase 1 as no major design is required. Coal Element. In effect to supply the power station we need a coal resource of 1.48mt/y which is 41.4mt over 28 years and allowing for a reserve of 30%, which the banks may well expect for a coal resource, this equates to 54mt for the station, which is half of the current resources of 109mt. So we can easily double the power generation to 2 X 300MW PS phases without the need for further coal field extension. However it is pertinent that they appear confident that there is excellent potential to expand the resources up to about 400mt of coal. An amount equivalent to supplying 8 phases of 300MW. Re the coal purchase price, this should be more or less decided now. They used a conservative value of $32.8/t in the PFS which is low in comparison to the current price of about $40/t, so for the mine figures, we can expect an increase in the $24 million profits by a possible 22%, or about a fifth. It is a strange concept that we will be digging the coal out of the ground and supplying it and charging it to a power station, which is our power station. It also means we are more or less in control of the prices and may have more stability and so may have less price fluctuations which are bound to exist in the market. Most figures are done on the basis of a fixed level coal value over the life of the plant but there will of course be some movement either way in these prices with scope to manoeuvre. The stated mine profit of $24m is based on conservative estimates, without considering the other half of the current resource of 109mt, let alone the potential to expand the resources. So assuming we raise finances and have a short term loan for the coal mine, we can start early production and sale or export of coal, which will facilitate loan repayment and/or allow part funding to be realised for the equity funding. The quicker we get started the quicker we start to create revenue. Is a year to production realistic? Wish we new what the strategy was going to be re all of the financial issues, but I suppose this will all be revealed in time. The current coal resources are 109mt, if we extract half and sell it off we still have sufficient for the power station and on top of this they believe that potentially we have an extra 300mt of coal resources. This being the case, at $32.8/tonne, this will be worth sales of $9.84 billion and at the predicted cost margins of 48% this will yield coal profits of $4.72 billion over the mine life. (based on the conservative coal price used in the PFS, so this may increase by about 22%). Assuming we produce the same amount of coal for sale as we anticipate is used in the PS, which is 1.48mt/year and we achieve $24m profit per year, this is equivalent to, $24m/328.9m shares, which is 0.073 dollars per share, or 4.77p per share and at a P/E of 10 this is worth 47.7p per share. (Assumes Kibo ownership only, but would be split according to the final asset share held). So assuming we have a buyer for the coal, this provides early profit per year, without the need to supply the power station at this point. Not forgetting we potentially have another three times the current resources. If we owned only the mine element, this produces a fair turnover and profit over 25/28 years based on 42mt of the current 109mt coal resource. (Perhaps we do a deal with SEPCO and we own the mine and they own the Power). The question is how much coal is it practicable to extract each year, as they could double up on the above if it was feasible? Compared with the power it is cheaper to mine the coal with less CAPEX outlay ($38m) and I would be thinking of further delineating the coal field to establish additional resources and concentrate on coal extraction to generate revenue for a couple of years prior to the power plant being built and commissioned. Alternatively Kibo and SEPCO III could buy up EDL and their 171mt of coal resources. So revenue can be generated initially with the early production and sell off of coal and another option is the additional markets which may be available for any coal resources not required for the Power plant generation. i.e. the alternative energy technology of coal to liquid gas conversion energies. This is under examination with the results due Q1 2016 and may be another important factor in reducing the equity funding requirement for the Mbeya project. Indeed the level of profits generated may all depend on how quickly they can remove and process the coal minerals etc. which then might dictate the amount of equity funding we might require. An increase in the profits will of course be reflected in any NPV estimate updates for the mine operation which may be forthcoming. Power Element. No doubt SEPCO III will confirm the final figures for the POWER element when they complete the power DFS. This is likely to be impressive as they will have had time to look at the electricity tariff rates and the possibilities of getting private off-takers on board which is probably at premium tariff rates compared to the domestic tariff rate. Beaufort’s Sheldon Modeland, as far as I remember, indicated that the electricity tariff was price sensitive in his model and varied between 9 and 11 cents per KWh. So hopefully we should see a fair increase in the tariff rates, albeit they are aware they must be competitive but still offer rates that remain affordable to customers. We should not lose sight of the fact that the main reason for the plant is to close the shortfall in power capabilities and supply in the region. Assuming power generation of 300MW, the plant generates a max. of (300,000KW x 24 hrs x 365 days) = 2628GWh. I have previously assumed the power element profit to be based on 15% of the mid tariff of 10 cents/KWh, or 1.5 cents per KWh and the resulting profit is (2628 x 10^6)KWh x 1.5cents = $39.42 millon per year. So at max load, every 1 cent change in electricity tariff will change the profit by $26.28 million and at 80% load a 1 cent change will change the profits by $21 million year. Assuming a base load factor of 80% this is a Power profit of $39.42 x 80% = $31.54 million per year. Combining the coal and power this is $24m + $31.5m = $55.5 million a year. (for 1 phase). Currently this is worth $55.5m/328.9m shares, which is $0.168 or 11.0p per share and based on a P/E of 10, this is worth $1.68 or £1.10 per share. (Assumes Kibo ownership and 1 phase only). Again an increase in the electricity tariffs will increase the NPV estimate, although not proportionally. Tariiff rates and coal prices are important here and we should have some degree of control on both. In the studies they have been conservative with the price of coal and there is scope to increase it, but it will be well below the 18 to 35 cents as LC indicated in one of the interviews. Note that as I recall when EDL did their PFS in March this year they quoted two NPV values. The higher NPV was based on commercial take-off tariff and was about 50% higher. So perhaps scope for Kibo to increase the power revenue with commercial take-off rates at higher electricity tariff charges. This of course may be a deciding factor in allowing domestic rates to be lower and more affordable to the Tanzanian people. The work content of the Power element study must be fairly comprehensive, however SEPCO have been there before and know the score so I would imagine they will be well on the way progressing the power DFS. Each passing week brings the FC that little bit closer. I still think the equity funding is the big question and any assets we sell off, along with the price, will ultimately decide on what share of the SPV assets we finally end up with. I am sure LC has his finger on the pulse re the equity situation and there must be a number of options that are open to them. All will be revealed. Surely if they announce another phase extending the power generation from 300MW to 600MW there must be a touch more interest in the Kibo shares from then on, surely? Hume – It looks as though we shall receive the Hume monies by 2 December, which is just in time for a Xmas bonus. Not ours I presume. On the other project fronts. Imweru. The PEA confirmed potential for initial mine development of 7 to 10 years and possibilities to expand for a further indicative 6 years and they hope to plan and budget for this work. An update on Imweru should be forthcoming and based on the PFS information they have and all of their assumptions on the technical, engineering, operating and economic factors and other related factors, it will be interesting to see whether all or part of the mineral resources can be classed as a Mineral Reserve, along with increasing the confidence levels to 70%/85% level. In addition they are confident of extending the gold resources by 40% to 80%. So in future at Imweru we might possibly move up from 550K oz of gold to between 770K oz and 990K oz and we still have Lubando at 168K oz. So combined, this would possibly take us over the 1 million oz mark for the gold. In July they were hoping to make rapid advance in the FS work. Other FS work also expected included the associated environmental assessments and advanced financial modelling and securing of all related permits and certificates. The initial work was stated as being underway and would be fully implemented once adequate funding has been secured. So from this, not really too sure how far we will have advanced Imweru, especially with MCPP taking priority, so perhaps we will receive a welcome progress update. In the past LC spoke about taking Imweru into early production and the Lake Victoria gold projects effectively being self funding. The Imweru project is an intriguing proposition as it can be mined, solely or jointly, or sold if desired, as and when they decide. Out of the ground gold is worth $660m or a resource value per share of $2 or £1.31. The in-ground valuation at 4% of the gold price, is worth 5.2p per share, however it is conceivable they may possibly get an offer between 9p and 12p per share if selling, particularly if Barrick/Acacia are interested, as they have a 10% free carry in Imweru (and Lubando) up to the decision to mine, when they have to contribute or be reduced to a 2% smelter royalty rate. Acacia also have first refusal to purchase at an agreed market price when we get to the bankable stage of the studies. So perhaps we even have a buyer at the right time and at the right price. If they prove up the resources to P and P, the in ground value is probably worth about 15% of the gold price, at about 19.6p per share. What share price are we currently sat at, a paltry 5p? Re Imweru and MCPP, I muted in a previous post that an option may be to sell off Imweru for, say 10p a share, or mine it with a SEPCO III and raise the same amount of £32.8 m ($50 m). This could start the coal production process and/or start the equity fund raising process on MCPP, and still leave us with 85% of the SPV assets to be released for equity funding. i.e. if necessary, which will probably be the case, unless LC has it otherwise sussed out. Could be the big bang when news comes. The sale and percentages retained was hypothesised in post number 34800, but it was only a guess at what we would have to sell asset wise and what we would be left with, in order to raise the 25% equity funding, or the equity portion according to our share of the SPV assets we finally hold. I think this scenario returned, Kibo retaining 48.3% of the SPV, with others on 51.7% and I guessed that Tanzanian government would take up a 15% share. It may be more who knows? Wouldn’t it be nice if we arranged or received a cheap loan from the Tanzanian government or they guaranteed our financing security! However it would appear from the recent Mbeya RNS that they are possibly looking to take on board a commercial loan which is understandable given the robustness of the profit figures. This of course may well change. It may be they can raise finance using the gold fields as security, especially if they can complete the relevant FS. The mine and power plant will be held as security for the debt funding which we will require from the banks and of course this will only be arranged and available to us if we can raise the 25% equity funding. Maybe it is important to get the coal up and running then get it extracted and sold or otherwise converted to alternative energies for sale. Other options might see them raising finance, through issuing bonds or royalty and streaming capital finance options where a share or price of the mineral is agreed upfront in exchange for Capital finance. However LC will be well advised on his finance options regarding the MCPP, that’s what the Standard Bank is there for. A placing might be used to raise a small amount, if required, but not for the equity funding as the amount is too large. Perhaps the royalty and streaming option could be applied to Imweru where a share of the gold, or an agreed price for the gold is set up in exchange for capital finance and this allows us to proceed and mine Imweru and generate funding for the coal and power project. I don’t know enough about this, so perhaps the cheaper option is to arrange finances based on the gold field securities, if this is feasible and implement mine production of the goldfield. Money is then available for the coal mine. Oh to be a fly on the wall in Kibo offices! A few questions still spring to mind. What will the SPV valuation be on completion of the DFS /BFS and the eventual FC? Raising 25% equity ensures the arrangement for the 75% debt funding, but what percentage of the SPV assets will we have to sell and what % will we be left with? What will the final power generation be for the complete project, if we are currently on 300MW Do we get a bank loan and start coal production which will later contribute to the equity funding or De we do as previous and explore further to extend the resources up from the 109mt or Do we get a loan and start digging for Imweru gold then start coal production etc or Do we mine Imweru as a JV, say with SEPCO to fund coal start etc or Do we sell Imweru off before or after further FS work, and can then start the coal mine etc. Do we JV on Haneti and would it raise enough capital? Probably not at this stage. Do we sell the Power element to SEPCO if they want it and run with the Mine element? Do we sell the complete MCPP Coal and Power elements if the price is right and concentrate on the other projects / acquistions. There must be other options of course. Haneti - As far as I remember, as they had firmed up on the drill targets they were hoping to implement their drilling programme in 2015 after the geotechnical drilling was completed at Rukwa, which is now the case. So perhaps an update on this position or word of a potential JV partner. Morogoro - The analysis of the Morogoro samples collected previously must be due soon and this may lead to additional sampling to enhance findings, to extend the mineralisation and assessment and mapping of the unexplored ground. Overall objective is to assess prospectivity and to define the project pathway. Pinewood – As far as I remember a review and update of the historic technical reports prepared for the Pinewood and the surrounding Uranium licence is being undertaken to further refine and define the next exploration studies. No Kibo expenditure is required on Morogoro and Pinewood with MTR committed to their $800K spend in 3 years. So let’s hope MTR deliver in full and play ball with our shares and don’t sell too rapidly. I received a warning once selling a company’s share, as I apparently sold two batches too quickly and was told it may as a consequence drive the price down and they threatened to cancel my deals. Me drive the price down and what do the MM get away with? Things must surely be starting to appear brighter even for the LTH as we are so much further down the road now and approaching DFS completion and then FC, although you would never know this from the share price. However it is easy to say this and I know how hard it is to be holding a share and to retain it when it constantly drops down month after month. LC has said he will create value for the company and shareholders, particularly long term holders. Let’s hope he fulfils this objective for all the small investors in Kibo. Hope to keep reading the posts on holiday in Teno, see you in 2 weeks or so. GLA.
Xtract Resources share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
Your Recent History
Gulf Keyst..
FTSE 100
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:30 V: D:20170225 22:38:53