George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video 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.
So when we get the new inferred MRE for the top 350 meters do you think they will tell us the remainder of the old inferred MRE . Example, 4.3m oz indicated and 0.6m oz inferred (remainder from first MRE not upgraded)?
Timber Trader a really good post from you this morning let’s hope others follow suit ,good luck,
TimberTrader.
Expect there will, as usual... be 2 or 3 hundred posts today here. Fighting and talking it round in circles and to death.
But the one you posted at 6:41 is going to be the benchmark for all sensible thinking investors. Nice post and thanks. Can switch off now here, as that says it very succinctly for the next 3 months!
Rgrds.
IMHO it appears, and concerns me, that there are increasingly some investors who are in a mind frame mode similar to what we saw during the lead up to the pre Scallywag first drill results and are getting way ahead of what it's going to include.
In several interviews and podcasts over the past few months, it's been clear, to me at least, that Shaun Day has been attempting to dampen this exuberance.
He made it quite clear, again, a couple of weeks ago, "The PFS is due out in the second half of the year and that's really well advanced. Again, when we've talked to the market about this, it's based on a point of time. It's based on where that..the cut off for drilling was around 1st March this year, so all of the drilling you've seen for the last 6 months is upside on top of what's been captured in the study and really it's going to be a segment of that...It's really focused on the fast start."
Now, the upgraded MRE, expected in early December, is another matter entirely.
GLA!
Hi Tig
Simple answer is to clear your mind of the last Inferred MRE this is a much smaller volume coming in the PFS.
It’s only based on the top 350m of the SE crescent and adjacent breccia.
Although the volume is lower the sulphides zone within have increased found by the infill drilling.
Far more shells/cubes will be included within this zone.
The grades are higher than the Inferred.
Although the breccia volume has decreased due to the sulphides increasing their grades are higher and more within the zone will be included.
I worked out that the Indicated numbers should be roughly the same as the Inferred or slightly more.
Most of the growth drilling lower down will be included in the Inferred in December but I’m not sure about the deep zones of the Eastern and Northern breccia there’s not enough drilling at the moment
Tiggerman -
Your Q2 - you should note that the old MRE gave an estimate of inferred resource. The PFS will need to base it's business case on indicated resource. There are significant differences in the statistical criteria used between the two. Inferred can use much looser assumptions; the evidence is "sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade or quality continuity". The level of statistical criteria for indicated is higher. Evidence is derived from "adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing and is sufficient to assume geological and grade or quality continuity between points of observation".
Although there has been a large amount of infill drilling, Bamps has confirmed that the 'shell' area to be included in the PFS is different from that of the MRE. That, and the stricter criteria for indicated resource suggest to me that the resource figures may not be significantly higher that the existing inferred.
Useful reading on mineral resource definitions: https://mrmr.cim.org/media/1128/cim-definition-standards_2014.pdf
This is what bamps has posted about this.
In the Dec RNS it does state which zone will be targeted for the Indicated Resource.
It’s not the same zones as the last one.
It’s just the SE crescent zone and only down to 350m.
It’s a lot smaller than the last so it’s obvious it will have less but the sulphide grades and volumes have Increased dramatically. I wouldn’t like to comment on what drills maybe included.
I feel it will be around the same sort of gold eq quantities.
The Inferred one in December will be much more a value driver as it could be big, last night’s results may be included but there’s a lot of hold ups with the assays so it’s hard to know which areas can be included by the end of Oct.
Some general background which I found useful - fairly basic and doesn't answer Tigger's question!
https://finfeed.com/investor-101/a-retail-investors-guide-to-all-things-pre-feasibility-study/
********************************************************
"What is a PFS?
The pre-feasibility is an early-stage analysis of a potential mining project.
Conducted by a small team of consultants, the PFS is designed to provide company stakeholders with key information such as logistics, capital requirements, and key challenges; all needed to help guide the decision-making process.
The PFS is a critical step in project development as it denotes the minimum prerequisite for conversion of a geologic resource into a reportable reserve.
When and why are PFSs undertaken?
A PFS is the key intermediate step in the assessment of a mining project and is intended to ascertain if a mineral resource is likely to support a viable mining project.
There are three common reasons for conducting a PFS:
As a foundation when committing to a major exploration programme following a successful preliminary programme.
To attract a joint venture partner, interest a buyer to the project or as a basis for a major underwriting to raise the required risk capital.
To help justify proceeding to the final feasibility studies.
What is included in a PFS?
The PFS should identify the critical issues and risks to be resolved during the final feasibility stages.
A comprehensive PFS should include detailed designs and descriptions for the mining operation, as well as cost estimates, project risks, safety issues and other important information.
In addition to geological and mining design information, a PFS also takes into account factors that may impact or interfere with the final project. These can include community issues, geographic obstacles and permit challenges.
The following list covers the main items in a PFS:
assessing reserves and saleable product from the delineated resources
generic mine design
non-detailed, staged life of mine planning and production scheduling assessing the mining methods, treatment routes and identifying cut-off factors, recoveries, dilution and losses in both mining and treatment
outlining probable plant, infrastructure, services and other facilities
producing a summary development structure and timetable
determining capital and operating costs
evaluating the specification and marketability of the commodity
setting up the deterministic economic evaluation model
determining financial viability
The PFS phase may become a series of iterative evaluations that are progressively updated and modified as exploration and engineering design proceeds.
What can an explorer deduce from the PFS?
Whilst a Prefeasibility Study is at a lower confidence level than later stage studies, it is intended that through iterations and adjustments in this PFS stage, optimal development choices are deduced to form the basis of the next stage, the D
I believe we are expecting the inferred MRE to be bumped to an indicated MRE for the shell to come at the same time as the PFS and that will take into account the infill drilling
tiggerman, you post an interesting thought about the pfs.
Is it based on 4.2 million equivalent gold, or the area which contains that gold?
As you say if infill drilling results in higher grades within 5hat area, then surely the MRE will be greater and not only that but be in the indicated rather than inferred category. Unless I am missing something.
Bamps, where are you lol!
The PFS is based on the initial
MRE figures .. it may be slightly more but I doubt it. There will be an updated MRE in December and with the grades and amount of drilling they have done .. I am hoping for something around 9moz including copper equivalent
PFS is not about upgrade that will inevitably come in time. It's purely commercial economics cost v r.o.i it's a done deal but none the less the market requires the rubber stamp and oh dont listen to the conspiracy theorists they know nought
PFS is only based on results up to March 21 as shaun stated in one of his interviews, do not expect a huge increase on 4.2 million oz equivalent.
I ought to know, but do still have some confusion as to the upcoming 2021 PFS / MRE
Q1 we have an existing MRE based on on existing shell dimensions which has produced an MRE using historical drill results , and the resulting grades , dating back to March 2021, of 4.2 M oz au equivalent. This is our starting point.
Q2. Since then there has been a huge amount of existing shell infill drilling which appears to improve the grades within the existing MRE shell, and which will improve the grades enormously. So , will the last Qtr , 2021 PFS be based on this existing shell ??? using improved grades ???
Or .......will it include an increased shell size based upon the additional at depth drilling. ( which seems logical to me .)
Q3 There has also been a large amount of step out drilling. These will presumably not be included in the PFS, but will be shown / calculated as an additional MRE , AU equivalent , that will be added in to an enlarged PFS / FS at a later stage. It will also presumably give a very good indication of a future enlarged FS.
Q4 .... or am I bonkers ( Panama - do not answer that question ) and quite mistaken in my thinking. Even if I am , I foresee our existing shell becoming , say 8M oz PFS... ( at the very least )
PLUS the additional at depth adding on another , say , 6 M oz ( 14 M oz )
PLUS the additional step outs eventually taking us up the ladder in leaps and bounds to 28 / 40 M oz.
Bamps , I could probably decipher the answers from your erudite expositions, , but I do not speak the language.
Tig