|
und Tibbsi hat mal wieder ausgeteilt-zwei gefüllte posts: The grades are are fine. The problem is that people compare them with PDN's Langer Heinrich, but that is wrong. That is a different style of uranium and is mined differently. Bannerman have an alaskite hosted, bulk-tonnage deposit that will be "bulk-mined" ... hence the grades can be much lower. What you need to look at is production costs per lb ... that is the key. At this stage BMN has costs of $22 p/lb, but they will look to significantly lower that with heap leaching & radiometric sorting. I expect a final cost to be about $19. With long-term U3O8 selling at around $70 p/lb, that is a VERY profitable project. CAPEX is going to be the issue! As a comparison, check out the other two advanced deposits in the area: Valencia: owned by Forsyth has 81mlbs @ only 120ppm ... and they are advancing to production as an economical mine. They have a tiny cut-off of only 60ppm too (BMN 100ppm) Trekkopje: owned by Uramin has 157mlbs @ only 140ppm, and just 80ppm cut-off. They are building the mine as we speak ... also an economical project. So, looking at BMN with 127m/lbs @ 207 PPM with a 100ppm cutoff ... I am wrapped. remember too they have some excellent high grade portions which they will sort & mine first, so expect initial production to be around 300ppm anyway. Of course we must mention that Extracts new Rossing South deposit is a beauty with spectacular grades, so it will have a greater profit margin again, probably around $13 p/lb. These two companies are the pick ------------------- A lot of generalities here, & a helluvalot of innacuracy: "Not sure I agree with the assumption that alaskite ore can be mined for $19/lb." This is nonsense! RIO have been, and still are, profitably mining Rossing at around $17 p/lb and they are locked into sales contracts at $35 p/lb and below!! "Industry rule of thumb for Namibia at current long term prices is that calcrete needs to be north of 200ppm (assuming near surface) and that alaskites need to be north of 400ppm (near surface)" Industry rule of thumb for Namibia! Whose thumb are you talking about!! Show us ONE industry reference to back up that ridiculous statement! Its the opposite way around. Calcrete deposits, especially LH are much more expensive to mine & more importantly peach & produce uranium from than alaskite. Generally the alaskite is very hard granite-like rock - like at Rossing - and has to be blasted out and must be crushed and milled to get it into a state that can be processed ... calcrete is essentially compacted sand/earth and is much easier to mine and process" Mate, very general ... Firstly sandstone is a misnomer, it is NEITHER sand nor stone, it is ROCK! Sandstone can be as hard as alaskite depending on the geology. Both sandstone & alskite will require blasting, the difference being sandstone is actually MUCH harder to extract the uranium from than alaskite, and also much harder on equipment than alaskite. In order for PDN to get the U out of LH, it has to be ground extremely fine, and being mainly quartz, it is murder on the crushers & rollers. The uranium from BMN's alaskite is proven to be much easily leacable, not needing fine grinding. LH also has very high carbonate content, and uses up to FOUR TIMES the amount of alkaline & reagents that BMN will need in acid & reagents at Anomaly A, and latest studies show that will decrease for BMN even further. Many of the projects such as Valencia (Alaskite) and Uramin (calcrete) will require a steep increase in U prices to be viable on a stand alone basis. I seem to remember the original Valencia feasibility results when released assumed U prices north of $100/lb LOL ... Oh hell! You better hurry and tell Uramin that because they have already started on their mine & desalination plant. They might appreciate the advice! Many of the projects such as Valencia (Alaskite) and Uramin (calcrete) will require a steep increase in U prices to be viable on a stand alone basis. I seem to remember the original Valencia feasibility results when released assumed U prices north of $100/lb - not a bad bet but another variable to be considered. Once again utter nonsene! Both have full BFS out showing they are economical at CURRENT U prices, and both moving toward production - something that WOULDNT happen if what you said had an ounce of truth. Paladin's calcrete deposit is close to the surface ... and is much easier to mine Newsflash! It doesnt matter how close to the surface the uranium is, what matters is the STRIP RATIO. For example, LH has their ore 20 to 30 metres below surface ... sounds good, nice & shallow! But how wide are the intercepts ... 5m, 10m? BMN might have their ore as deep as 300m below surface, but it starts in parts from the surface! & in fact some of it is ABOVE ground in exposed alaskites. BMN have announced their strip ratio for Anom A already & it is essentially the same as LH, they just go deeper, while LH is spread for many KLM's along the paleochanel. Both will end up removing the SAME amount of dirt. In fact just about everything you said is wrong! I only agree with your last paragraph as the calcrete & alskite deposits are indeed incompatible. But that wouldnt stop PDN showing interest in BMN as BMN own all the ground around LH, including the primary uranium source for LH. wow- das ist besser als im Hörsaal! |
|
| aus der Diskussion: | BANNERMAN - jetzt auch in Frankfurt |
| Autor (Datum des Eintrages): | Ikar (12.02.09 22:17:56) |
| Beitrag: | 118 von 383 (ID:36569727) |
| Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr © wallstreetONLINE | |