We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
No Stonk, that sand will get blown over the national park and ruin it forever :)
Mr Y,
So, I think what they're saying is "in year one, we'll dig up the choicest bits first and these areas will have a higher density of pgm per tonne of ore than the average for the whole area".
You have not factored in the true value here, which is of course how that residual ore (after PGM extraction) can be ground up into sweet, sweet builders sand. Lotta Freddos in them there hills.
Hi white buffalo,
This might get confusing.
The RNS you refer to does show lower grades.
The total of Pd equivalent is 55,898kg. The 2139kg of Au isn't included in the Pd equivalent but Au is in the figures from the latest RNS.
So to make the figures comparable lets say 60,000kg of Pd equivalent from the 31 May 17 (so adding about 4000kg for Au to cover it's higher value than Pd).
If you look at the total ore figure it's 27.805mt. Divided by 60,000kg gives average grade of Pd eq of 2.16g/t.
So for the earlier 1mt ore throughput that would yield 76,244 oz of Pd equivalent.
Multiply the 76,244 by 1.7 to adjust for the higher ore throughput they are now suggesting and you get 129,615 oz of Pd equivalent.
So 2.16g/t for 1.7mt gives the 130,000 oz they suggest.
But their grades have now increased by circa 50% to an adjusted grade (with 70% of resource at L pit) of 3.22g/t of Pd equivalent over both pits.
3.22g/t = 0.11366 oz/t x 1.7mt = 193,222 oz of Pd equivalent you would expect from the higher grades.
As usual it's as clear as mud.
There is a big difference between grades specific for the areas containing PGM's and an expected mined grade returned which would include ore dilution. You cannot target the precise bits containing PGM's and chip them out with a chisel to make sure you just get pure PGM's, they get diluted with worthless ore surrounding them which then gets processed returning a lower figure of g/t returned after processing.
Mr Y,
The only previous figure I can find for PGM (pd eq) at MT is from the 31st May 2017 RNS, which seems to give a general grade of PGM (pd eq) for the area as 2.02g/t. If I have missed an interim grade figure (rns'ed between 31st May 2017 and now), I apologise (researching on my phone isn't ideal).
Based on these figures, it would seem that the pd eq grade in the most recent rns (3.1g/t or 3.5g/t) is higher than the 2.p2g/t rns'ed in 2017.
Can you point me to where the 3.1g/t or 3.5g/t have been previously rns'ed - or an alterative figure, if that was provided?
MrYFronts .
My mistake but reading my phone in the sun i should take more time but they are revised figures and i need to find the initial grades to work out whether they have been revised upwards
AIM is a self fulfilling entity now. People just feed money to MM and lose their own money.
With respect cj62 you are the one who doesn't understand the RNS.
There is no increase that you mention.
WN grades are 2.6gpt of Pd and 3.5gpt PGM's made up of Pd, Pt and Gold. Not an increase from 2.6 to 3.5.
L grades are 1.8gpt Pd and 3.1gpt of PGM's made up of Pd, Pt and Gold. Not an increase from 1.8 to 3.1.
MM's are doing what they have done a lot of times here, a great RNS drops and they go on a share raid. It's just business to them, they don't care as long as they get to make some money from it.
GLA
The throughput ( rock excavated)has increased from 1mtpa to 1.7 mtpa . Yes that is a 70% increase in production .
The more interesting figures in the RNS are the following grades. At west nittis the recovered metals per tonne of ore mined has increased from 2.6 grams/ tonne 3.5 grams / tonne.
At loipis the increse is 1.8 grams/ tonne - 3.1 grams/ tonne.
Whilst it cannot be reported as a resource upgrade because it may be different next year they are telling you that there is a shedload MORE goodies in the rock and we are digging it out faster ( more efficiently) If you are unable to understand that the RNS is quite remarkable get out now and how the mms have taken this down again is criminal.
Please reread the RNS again this is going to be massive