Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. 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.
Firstly, I would have expected a positive economic evaluation from the inclusion of the additional ore achieved from phases 1&2 anyway, with the understanding from the interim update/report that ‘warranted’ further optimisation drilling in a next drill schedule with pre-concentration a further avenue. Not because further optimisation drilling was deemed necessary as phases 1&2 come up short! Doesn’t generally work like that, the company knew what they needed to achieve when they closed off.
However, the most important thing now is that the concept of incorporating BOS has been confirmed now to be a success. With decent recoveries and grade upgrades, with an initial estimate of 64% decrease in the material ‘considered’ as waste, which a smaller plant and throughput, would potentially add more scenarios to those existing 16 economic pit shells with greater options toward seeing the all important production scenarios that would include reduced Cap and Op costings as well as seeing how the economics of a larger plant of 20-25 mtpa would come back with the resulting BOS.
The confidence that the current results can now be input into the financial model will hopefully now see that circa 25% IRR figure achieved and a decent NPV.
A point of note is that Tomra are still confident that BOS could be amenable for the higher grade ( that will be the early mined Cap payback phase) with Xtract not feeling it necessary at this stage to wait for those further tests to be returned ‘before’ incorporating into the model.
Will wait for the full study which will show where further optimisation and pre-concentration can improve value and wether there is any need to advance any further before seeing where AA are and what they want to do.
Must admit I have a tier or 4 in my eye!
>> The whole concept is to remove the waste rock from the ore with a 64% reduction of the mass material that then goes for processing.
Yes, but you only end up processing half the original metal. Read the bottom line (Metal Recovery (%)) of the second table.
Hi Josh
I think you are basing your calcs on run 1 (which had the best results), I’m using the average excluding run 4 for my calcs which are worse than yours.
Cheers
James
What the hell are you going on about Steve?
The whole concept is to remove the waste rock from the ore with a 64% reduction of the mass material that then goes for processing.
I'm reading it as just process the ore at 0.2% or lower, doesn't seem much benefit above that cutoff. Not sure if you can run the ore through twice if it's got high reject copper %. Or even set the parameters to reject less material for the higher % material.
Hi James,
I think you are right in what you are saying, I read it the same. I suppose that they have to do further tests to work out the optimum procedure for the sorting process so that recoveries become higher.
My assumption is that:
Before ore-sorting 1000Kg of rock was for example $100 to process but you only got 0.15% Cu from it - 1.5Kg Cu
After ore-sorting you process only 360Kg of rock at $36 but you get 0.35% Cu from it - 1.26Kg Cu
So therefore the amount of Cu you get is actually quite similar but at nearly a third of the cost, so while yes you do throw away some good bits as part of the ore-sorting the Opex costs are so far improved it makes it worth the while.
I could be way off the mark but I think that is why it does work in the overall scheme of things.
Cheers
Josh
Quick summary.
1) The ore sorter rejects 64% of the ore, so that the remaining 36% has a grade 52% higher.
2) This means the processor only has to get through 1/3rd as much work.
3) It also means that half the original metal is rejected.
4) It also means, only half the original income if the processor runs at 1/3rd capacity.
Lets assume instead the processor runs at 2/3rds original capacity, because now with 50% better grade we are back to original income but with a 1/3rd reduction in processing costs. Sounds good?
However, a couple of considerations.
1) As you are rejecting two thirds of the ore, you need to dig up ore at double the previous rate in order to have the process running at 2/3rd the original rate
2) You also have a new step with the ore-sorter handling double what was originally planned for the processor
So the question is whether digging up twice as much ore and putting it through the sorter would cost more than the saving achieved by running the processor at 2/3rd capacity.
Am I reading this correctly, you reduce the ore processed by 64% but only recover 54% of the metals? Surely that doesn’t make sense (unless you processing costs are $15/t?) or your copper price is super low (in which case the project doesn’t make sense anyways).
Appreciate this doesn’t include the upside from smaller Capex etc but I’m struggling with this and hoping I’ve misunderstood?
Cheers
James
If you apply rough calculations to existing study it would bring the $5 per LB down to about $3.95.
A good step, I'm happy with that. Let's see what it does to the much larger, new jorc.
Could be Tier 2 by the time the AGM comes around 😊, can't remember the last bit of good news we concerning Bushranger.
The big positive about this info is that it's actually in an RNS not some waffle in a podcast.
Next RNS will be a glowing Fairbride RNS that will be designed to take the heat off CB and OSV at the AGM
and hopefully push the SP nearer 5p where it should be.
Other points to consider, copper rising steadily, BR location, M&A in mining hotting up.
What is Tier 3 in mining?
Tier 3 deposits are small / marginal deposits (most deposits found fall into this category) While they can be profitable – at best they don't meet more than one of the Tier 1 criteria.
I would say the numbers don't appear to be blowing the bl~@dy doors off ..... but maybe these are enough to make the difference needed?
We need the associated economics in order to say anything concrete about this RNS but what we could do with now is a confirmation that we have all the information reported to allow Optimal to complete their study.
.... oh yes and a concrete timescale for receiving the study.
Only had a quick scan through the RNS
Good results overall, how long will Optima take to give us the updated
economic model for the overall Bushranger Project I wonder ?
A positive RNS. I feel we will have at least one more before the AGM
Off to read it again.
RNS
Those that have bought in due to recognising the value being created here will be more than happy as the rerate unfolds. Will the non holding bashers see the light I wonder ?
Charmed I'm sure.
>>Why isn't CB shouting this from the rooftops
I wonder if its due to the fact he didn't find the asset? - Or that Bird is more interested in copper? - Or that he doesn't consider it 'big enough'?
He was certainly shouting from the rooftops over Eureka (the IOCG :P ) and BR (the world class asset)
Why isn't CB shouting this from the rooftops ?
The only decent success XTR has had in memory and he leaves it to (chiefly)Ma Baker and Howezap to promote.
You should be asking him for a job Ma.
XTR should be 5p based on this alone.
From Empress update
>>>Since production started in July 2022, ore throughput has grown by 11% per month, grades have averaged 1.6g/t.
Still a little shy of the current open pit average grades of 1.76 g/t which the ramping up reflects the using up of the lower grade stockpiles and ‘initially’ at start up and commissioning, even marginal ore that wasn’t even in the resource statement. Results will increase even further down the line with up to 2.62g/t as and when the other 3 satellites with ‘known’ reserves are bought into play. Still plenty to come from fairbride with extensions and the higher graded deeper sulphides yet though, where will see far greater returns from the joint deal with mmp
Even now the income will still not be at the bottom line.
??? MA ???
I don't know why the word G oat was starred out.
Very strange......
there's always the **** inn around the corner.
Https://empressroyalty.com/site/assets/files/6334/2023-07-13-nr-empr-67vuq91.pdf
Techno! Techno! Techno effing notice ! lmao :))))))
Techno ! Techno ! Techno prisoners !