Marvel Gold ehemals Graphex Mining - After Tax NPV 480 Mio AUD bei 16 Mio Börsenwert - world leadin (Seite 37)
eröffnet am 20.09.18 11:00:04 von
neuester Beitrag 28.02.23 09:04:40 von
neuester Beitrag 28.02.23 09:04:40 von
Beiträge: 3.976
ID: 1.288.876
ID: 1.288.876
Aufrufe heute: 0
Gesamt: 207.243
Gesamt: 207.243
Aktive User: 0
ISIN: AU0000102154 · WKN: A2QB8V
0,0055
EUR
0,00 %
0,0000 EUR
Letzter Kurs 08.05.24 Lang & Schwarz
Werte aus der Branche Rohstoffe
| Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % |
|---|---|---|
| 0,8100 | +11,11 | |
| 0,8000 | +11,11 | |
| 2,0800 | +10,05 | |
| 10,770 | +9,50 | |
| 200,00 | +8,11 |
| Wertpapier | Kurs | Perf. % |
|---|---|---|
| 10,520 | -12,33 | |
| 0,9860 | -12,74 | |
| 0,6000 | -18,37 | |
| 0,6601 | -26,22 | |
| 46,43 | -98,01 |
Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben
Feedback
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 63.270.976 von schmidileins2713 am 08.04.20 08:20:22Ich habe das Teil- gedanklich- aus meinem Depot ausgebucht.
Wie konnte ich nur auf Phil reinfallen.
Aber man muss immer selbstkritisch anmerken. Das ist nur DIE EIGENE SCHULD.
Und das war es hier für mich. Mach's gut.
Wie konnte ich nur auf Phil reinfallen.
Aber man muss immer selbstkritisch anmerken. Das ist nur DIE EIGENE SCHULD.Und das war es hier für mich. Mach's gut.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 63.270.652 von The_Whale am 08.04.20 07:39:47Ich tippe auf "das Ende".😒
Diese ständigen Verlängerungen des TH kenne ich noch zur Genüge von Cape Lambert.
Was daraus geworden ist, ist ja kein Geheimnis.
Wünsche euch alles Gute, dass es nicht so kommt.
Was daraus geworden ist, ist ja kein Geheimnis.
Wünsche euch alles Gute, dass es nicht so kommt.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 63.270.418 von schmidileins2713 am 08.04.20 06:27:35So kann man den Weg zu "in Administration" auch gestalten. Was für eine Pleite.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 63.270.268 von Chancen1904 am 08.04.20 01:09:22Vielleicht wird dann schon abgebaut....😂😂
Trading Spotlight
Und noch eine Woche
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 63.248.164 von schmidileins2713 am 06.04.20 09:51:07Naja, die DFS von WKT scheint von der Qualität auf dem Niveau der PFS von Graphex zu liegen.
Für die DFS von Graphex hat man ja bulk sampling gemacht und schubs waren die Zahlen nicht mehr auf PFS Niveau.
Für die DFS von Graphex hat man ja bulk sampling gemacht und schubs waren die Zahlen nicht mehr auf PFS Niveau.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 63.246.976 von Reiners am 06.04.20 08:35:22und das trifft auf Graphex nicht zu?
Interessantes Posting heute auf HC bezüglich WKT.
What Croc's last two posts should tell the not-so-clueless is that you can get a sign-off on a PFS or DFS with sufficiently skewed metallurgical testing that ultimately leads to a technical due diligence report that is not flawless.
A composite sample made up of 50/50 from two distinctly different geological zones is NOT REPRESENTATIVE of the select mining of the zone that the Pareto DD is based upon.
Secondly, Croc can ride his bull around the fact that no bulk sampling was done from the geological zone to be mined for the first few years which is essentially rock (hence why it requires drilling and blasting). It would be critical to shareholders' investment that a bulk sample is put through the rigours of blasting, hauling, grinding and crushing of the precise targeted graphite ore via a pilot plant. None of this has been done!!!
Those that are in production throughout the world understand first hand the fragility of graphite. That's where a theory-based DFS falls short of its glowing results... results that are based on assumptions, hypotheticals and price forecasts.
Graphite production is a delicate balancing act and if flake size is massively reduced by being subjected to the innate hardness of rock in which it is contained. Its not contained in regolith or saprolite which is kind to graphite (which is why low grade is not an issue in that type of host ground). Now that it is known that the DFS is deficient in information about WKT's select mining model, then it's a given that WKT is likely to spend the first few years trying to improve its FSD whilst juggling its dissipating FC grade.
At this stage of the game, no graphite project company (without having done a pilot plant testing) even knows its likely product FC% which is standard throughout the production industry. Its an unknown... hence why WKT uses TGC% in its reports. There will be trade-offs between less milling and more floatation to try and rescue flake size due to its host rock being hard compared to saprolite... the result being lowered carbon concentrate in the end product. What WKT's insitu TGC% is will pale into insignificance since its host rock selected for mining and production will impact all metrics once put through the rigours of real production. If graphite's host rock is unweathered (which WKT's is) then all the best for funding and production.
The RED FLAGS are in the missing (or composite) data and testing!!!
What Croc's last two posts should tell the not-so-clueless is that you can get a sign-off on a PFS or DFS with sufficiently skewed metallurgical testing that ultimately leads to a technical due diligence report that is not flawless.
A composite sample made up of 50/50 from two distinctly different geological zones is NOT REPRESENTATIVE of the select mining of the zone that the Pareto DD is based upon.
Secondly, Croc can ride his bull around the fact that no bulk sampling was done from the geological zone to be mined for the first few years which is essentially rock (hence why it requires drilling and blasting). It would be critical to shareholders' investment that a bulk sample is put through the rigours of blasting, hauling, grinding and crushing of the precise targeted graphite ore via a pilot plant. None of this has been done!!!
Those that are in production throughout the world understand first hand the fragility of graphite. That's where a theory-based DFS falls short of its glowing results... results that are based on assumptions, hypotheticals and price forecasts.
Graphite production is a delicate balancing act and if flake size is massively reduced by being subjected to the innate hardness of rock in which it is contained. Its not contained in regolith or saprolite which is kind to graphite (which is why low grade is not an issue in that type of host ground). Now that it is known that the DFS is deficient in information about WKT's select mining model, then it's a given that WKT is likely to spend the first few years trying to improve its FSD whilst juggling its dissipating FC grade.
At this stage of the game, no graphite project company (without having done a pilot plant testing) even knows its likely product FC% which is standard throughout the production industry. Its an unknown... hence why WKT uses TGC% in its reports. There will be trade-offs between less milling and more floatation to try and rescue flake size due to its host rock being hard compared to saprolite... the result being lowered carbon concentrate in the end product. What WKT's insitu TGC% is will pale into insignificance since its host rock selected for mining and production will impact all metrics once put through the rigours of real production. If graphite's host rock is unweathered (which WKT's is) then all the best for funding and production.
The RED FLAGS are in the missing (or composite) data and testing!!!
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 63.246.499 von IllePille am 06.04.20 07:55:04Jo, hatte mich bei der Meldung auch gewundert.
Durchsuchen
