Phoenix Copper Share Discussion Threads

[donald pond] 08/6/2023 14:23

There was definitely a smaller turnout than last year. I've spent a lot of the last day chatting to the board and they remain very confident and focused on the prize. It might be more helpful for others without my involvement to comment o how they perceived things.

[sithuk] 08/6/2023 11:41

If anyone at the agm could ask the board to clarify what is the programme to deliver the project into production that would be great too.

[bigboyblue] 08/6/2023 10:52

Any reports from the AGM would be very welcomed by those unable to attend (well, by me anyway). Sometimes the body language etc can be more useful than the words on a rns.

[seagreen] 08/6/2023 09:08

Mufprat I would give up the coke it might make you less stressed

[warm norm] 07/6/2023 15:41

Keep up the good work juju. Picking up some cheap stock and looking forward to seeing all that egg over your boat.

[soulsauce] 07/6/2023 15:26

tzecat well said, spot on.

[warm norm] 07/6/2023 15:08

Keep up the good work juju. Picking up some cheap stock and looking forward to seeing all that egg over your boat.

[mufprat] 07/6/2023 15:02

DPThe problem (as I see it) sits within RNS clarity, or in PXC's case lack of. Obviously investors are unsurprisingly focused on the Bond issue, but previous info has also stressed the importance of the ATS process to enhance production profitability. Whilst that has now proven to work on a large scale (your words) we find that is only part of the story. Further work has to be undertaken to demonstrate its commercial viability within the construct of the Plant. I'm note sure that's as obvious as you may think, not to the average Joe like me anyway. Nor has it ever (as far as I'm aware) been made clear that further work in this regard would be required once proven. I've mentioned before that I wonder what PXC staff get up to on a daily basis, I sincerely hope some of that time has been spent creating financial modelling on potential outcomes of the ATS lab work. If so, commercial viability should be proven in days few as opposed to months. If we have to wait for Plant design, contractor quotes, supply costs etc, I suspect the latter will be the case, sigh.I doubt any potential Bond investor will want to commit to the best part of $100M until that work is complete. No wonder then we're barely treading water.Off to find some cokeIf only Carlsberg drafted RNSs!

[juju44] 07/6/2023 14:12

Its all a big yawn with lots of blah blah but no real delivery

[kaos3] 07/6/2023 14:06

what DP said is - as far as I get it ... first they must do the technical equipment design project, then evaluate its cost and time needed to make a mine, then they can get the bonds issued... before that is not possible ... to finance unknown ... and not wise to take on debt burden by cash not being fully employed

few more months for sure imho

I think they should do it as soon as possible - not being too smart - market conditions might be much worse later on

[tzecatzlipoca1] 07/6/2023 14:00

Long time shareholder previously sat on the sidelines but felt compelled to finally post today out of frustration - I would echo Mufprat in adding my disappointment regarding the manner in which these RNS are crafted. Whilst the board may be honourable and honest people, it’s only natural that with high risk stocks such as this there will be a degree of scepticism amongst shareholders and the wording of these RNS leave a lot to be desired. To me the announcement this week was done out of desperation ahead of the agm and let’s be honest - we are only interested in the bond financing since without this everything else is irrelevant. There’s lot of talk about different plans but we are yet to hear of anything concrete. I’m going to give it a few more weeks before I begin to unload my position at a substantial loss and move on.

[kaos3] 07/6/2023 13:57

what would be than the time range for an operating mine start then ....

12 months - 18 months -24 months

getting projects on the paper, getting finances, ordering the equipment, getting it, installing it, getting certificates etc

[donald pond] 07/6/2023 13:53

Mufprat,
the point is taken, but the problem is that we can only say what we can actually prove. In conversation or through a brokers note a company can let you know what they think, or hope, or expect, but an RNS should be for facts.

So, before we finalise our plans we will have to approach a manufacturer to quote for building the plant to the exact specification we need. Now, of course this is an iterative process, and Ryan has a good idea how much the various options will cost. But we cannot say the process is "commercially viable" for sure until we have worked out pretty exactly the cost of plant and the ongoing cost of reagents, and factor in the price of the commodities being produced. That will come in due course.

So perhaps the RNS could have been phrased differently, to say "we will now move onto the design phase of the project" or similar, but the net effect is the same: ATS worked at small scale, it works at large scale, we now need to work on optimising the process and designing the plant, and at that point we will know for certain whether it is commercially viable. But really, does it need saying that we would never have gone down this route if it wasn't?

I would say that one very important aspect of this is that we will be producing all 3 metals from day 1, and copper and gold are often negatively correlated. So it is a much more robust model to have all 3 in production from the start.

[mufprat] 07/6/2023 13:29

It's looking like a 100% good news story, however you try to frame it'I don't disagree, however the manner in which the RNS is framed leaves a lot to be desired. The RNS headline is more negative than positive:'Preliminary Results of Metallurgical Testing' would lead investors to believe this is the first step when the reality is much different. The preliminary results were those of the smaller samples completed some time ago. Surely the whole point of this latest testing was to demonstrate the process will be commercially viable. Instead we get the following:'Assuming the process is commercially viable, we would then plan to formally incorporate it into our Plan of Operations for final submission to the regulatory authorities.'So if anyone is wondering why the share price is down c14% over the last two trading days, look no further.Whoever drafts these RNSs needs to learn how to put a positive spin on what is good news (Or find another job). The market habitually shafts PIs, we don't need a turkey voting for Xmas.

[klondykejohn] 07/6/2023 12:20

I have posted this before but Ellen Molleman did a comprehensive study of copper/gold extraction back in 1998 for her masters degree. A good read if you are a chemist.
The studies did prove that copper could be extracted. Indeed, the copper oxidisation helped in gold recovery.
Barrick gold and Goldstrike are 2 companies who use ATS for gold extraction using a cu ionic catalyst.
Whether this is suitable for Cu extraction, I do not know.
Cynaide will be uued less and less in the developed world so if PXC can prove up then confirm Cu can also be extracted on a production scale then well done to them.

[bradshaw980] 07/6/2023 10:17

Cordoba minerals is a company i follow, they have a copper-gold-silver deposit and their PEA envisaged a dore producing circuit through gravity separation for the precious metals then conventional froth flotation for a clean copper concentrate. So they'd have gold and silver dore bars and a copper concentrate. I have no idea what Pheonix envisage unfortunately as I can find no economic study, unless someone can point me to one. Cheers!

[bradshaw980] 07/6/2023 09:25

I brought this up as yesterday I listened to the Meridian mining CEO saying they have a very simple flow sheet and he talked-about companies doing 5, 6 7 8 met testing rounds as they can't make things work. ...on crux investor if anyone wants to listen and I'm not a shareholder....all Imho DYOR!

[donald pond] 07/6/2023 08:55

Brads,ATS has long been used in producing gold and silver and in recovering copper for recycling. We don't know if it has been used in the mining context before because most copper deposits are sulphides (where it wouldn't work) and the price of sulphuric acid has historically been low enough for alternatives to not be necessary. We know we could use cyanide to get the gold and heap leach with sulphuric acid to get the copper, but think that for this specific blend of copper oxides and precious metals ATS gives us the chance to use a more environmentally friendly approach that will be easier, safer and more financially robust to operate. It's looking like a 100% good news story, however you try to frame it

[retirementplan] 07/6/2023 08:50

Bradshaw980: if it's such a red flag to you, don't buy. Sell if you have any, and you will be free of PXC. Else, have a Coke, a smile & shut the f#&% up 🥱

[juju44] 07/6/2023 08:43

It has been the excuse for no progress on the ground and delays in ever getting approvals. Can these guys ever produce the metals . i am beginning to doubt it

[bradshaw980] 07/6/2023 08:39

And now we've got this new fangled ATS recovery route where nobody as yet can point out a producing mine where it has been successful! Trailblazers indeed! Prove to me this ATS 'works' please!

[bradshaw980] 07/6/2023 08:35

How many rounds of metallurgical test work has this deposit had over the years? And why? I seem to remember the technical report stated there were several rounds of met work years ago! Personally a big red flag for me...Imho DYOR!

[jitters3] 07/6/2023 08:29

Buys at 25 showing as a sell I've just topped up