The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
Someone has been telling porky pies.....
If the date was changed on Friday this would have to have been during normal business hours. This would have given TUN time to have released an RNS. The fact that this did not happen and that there is no reference to an extension on any gov web site makes me wonder (Someone with more knowledge of these matters than myself has also looked) if this is a mistake.
@VIS - you could be right, that did occur to me, but the submission link is still present and active. If you click on that link the revised date is there right along with all the data forms to allow public participation. 11.59pm tomorrow that lot should be closed to confirm your speculation. If not it's been extended.
Perhaps the date change reflects the closing of the period for public consultation and the start of the period for considering those submissions from the public, rather than an unexpected delay or an elongation of the period for public submissions.
Well the working assumption is that the IGDH submission is the cause of the delay. That's an educated guess based on a paucity of data to explain the date extension. The fact that the date has changed is not at issue. Why it has changed still is. Perhaps it's something else, but given that the D&C EA will likely only be persuaded by thorough reasoned quantified analysis, which the IGDH work is, then the logical step is to view its submission into the public consultation as the single source, or perhaps one of many sources, responsible for date change. If it's not the source of the date change which you suggest then great, but the Public Consultation page (excerpted below) [looking specifically at bullet point 3] states the following:
++++++++++++
We can take account of
*Relevant environmental regulatory requirements and technical standards.
*Information on local population and sensitive sites.
*Comments on whether the right process is being used for the activity, for example whether the technology is the right one.
*The shape and use of the land around the site in terms of its potential impact, whether that impact is acceptable and what pollution control or abatement may be required.
*The impact of noise and odour from traffic on site.
*Permit conditions by providing information that we have not been made aware of in the application, or by correcting incorrect information in the application (e.g. monitoring and techniques to control pollution).
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
If the SLT has done its job properly it should be able to rebuff the points made quickly, as they commissioned the report back in 2019, paid for it, and awarded IGDH shares for his efforts. Then according to IGDH "opted to ignore the results". Anyway I guess in the next 24hrs we'll know for sure. If its been extended surely at least one of the interested parties will make a public announcement about it. ATB
Sorry for my ignorance. Bit confused. Are we saying the EA report has been delayed to the 30th?
Yes I have followed all the links.
MY understanding of the IGDH submission is that it could possibly have a bearing on the proposed updated feasibility study Q3 2024 but would have no effect on the MPF permit consultation.
I agree. I think this was changed Fri evening. Have you followed the links I supplied for prior mentions of the 7th as the closing date?? One from the RNS, one from thewaybackmacine and one from an industry commentator. The current d&c ea landing page now states the 30th. That changed happen Friday pm I believe, just prior to the bank holiday. Perhaps notifications will follow tomorrow. Perhaps a call to the D&C EAU might clarify why the change. My best guess is its as a result of the IGDH submission. I've had comms with him, he confirmed he had provided info to the portal. I've seen his report. He appears quite legit and on the level. It might be something else but I don't think so.
In the final analysis provided the D&C green light the permit it doesn't matter. Integration of these ideas may be a positive , but if due diligence was followed anything of value will have been gleaned and adopted already. The issue comes if his ideas have merit but they were passed over for reasons as yet undisclosed.
Evening Croissant. I have checked as far as possible and although I can find links that lead to a page with the closing date of 30/5/2024 I have been unable to find anywhere that it states there has been an extension to the consultation period, or any reason for one. I have checked local press etc as well as Gov sites.
@VIS - in which case they should be able to rapidly rebuff the proposal in total based on sound logic grounded on a prior review of his analysis. Thats my expectation.
My understanding is that TUN BoD have considered IRDH's ideas but have decided against.
Bank Holiday?
If there's been an extension to the EA, why has there been no RNS put out?
Https://www.mdpi.com/2075-163X/8/5/191
Interesting read which gives an excellent breakdown of one efficient method for mineral separation and tungsten recovery. Likely low relevance.
@ VIS ---- IRDH was a contractor brought in by TW in 2019 to undertake an investigation of the mineral actually being mined at Hemerdon. He posted this earlier to the board (18/03/2024 00:17)......
+++++++++
1) in late 2018 it was discovered that the WO3 mineral at Hemerdon was Ferberite and not Wolframite and that WOLF MINERALS has designed the mineral process plant for the wrong Mineral !
2) in 2019 tests were run at the renowned OUTOTEC research centre in Frankfurt Germany) and this work was paid for by the new owners of TWL , The results were excellent ( report available )and paved the way for changes to the circuit configuration to have a low cost operation at high recovery
3) The technical team of TWL opted to ignore the results and choose to try to repair the existing dense medium plant ( 5 years later not much done and requires Capex to move forward )
4) in the new circuit the dense medium plant is not required and the saving in Capex ad Opex is huge .... who every heard of a dense medium circuit for a paramagnetic mineral ( such as Ferberite)
5) The circuit can be modified and many parts are on site already
6) The tin circuit is already in place and needs no modification
7) if anyone is interested to know more details, please contact me
8) the present circuit is clumsy and will result in high operating costs and it is so essential to work in the lower operating cost in a world of heavy competition
++++++++++
I directed Ian to the public consultation web page and Ian said he would submit this information. The report he mentions was commissioned years before Gawthorpe was employed and took the helm, so likely he knows nothing about it.
There are a few assumptions being made here that this is the issue that's causing the extension, but if it is, and it has merit then it will be of interest to all parties as it suggests lowered CAPEX for a simpler circuit and by extension a more reliable process, greater mineral recovery percentages therefore increased profitability, and reduced environmental impact (noise/waste). There's your new new evidence that has not yet been considered. ATB
3 links supplied below. Date has changed D&C EA website. Was 07/05 now 30/05.
Https://www.mining.com/web/china-cuts-first-2024-tungsten-mining-quota-1-6-from-year-ago/
Croissant
Where are you picking up that there has been a four week extension? Is it a reliable source? My understanding is that there would have to be new evidence which has not yet been considered to cause a delay.
Ian Gordon Hall Dun, I'm wondering Sir if your information on ferberite and optimal circuit process design has hit the bullseye, as there's been an unexpected four week extension to the D&C EA consultation. If so, hopefully it's a jackpot winner, rather than a torpedo that sinks the Good Ship Tungsten West and all those who were sailing in Her.
Are you able to cast any light on the matter?
ATB Croissant
You might be right, but you might not.....
https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2023/uk/what-is-the-uks-critical-minerals-strategy-and-how-does-it-compare
Summary at the bottom of the page 2nd sentence "Whilst...."
It gives more time for people to pee on our chips. There's so much red tape in this country, it's a joke. People don't want industry in the UK. Too much green wash.
I wonder if anyone has noticed the 4 wk extension to the consultation period, just slipped by the EA?
Several sources indicate initially a 6 wk consult period terminating 7th May:
1) RNS 25/03/2024 - 6 week consultation period , termination date 7th May (if you advance from that date on the calendar)
2) https://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/Final+consultation+on+permit+for+Hemerdon+tungsten+mine+25032024152500 - states 11.59pm 7th May; and
3) Way back machine for the EA webpage itself - impression #2 https://web.archive.org/web/20240406214139/https://consult.environment-agency.gov.uk/psc/pl7-5bw-drakelands-restoration-limited2/ - this version of the web page clearly states "Closes 7th May 2024"
I wonder what caused that? Any ideas???
Is this going to be the make or brake of us going forward when we receive the EA report? Does it all depend on how many people object to it? The issues raised can be addressed.
@vii. I know this has been discussed here before.
Are you alluding to the sidings at 50.395619,-3.997650 (sorry long/lay not OS grid ref). Due south from Sparkwell.
I can't see it happening myself. It would go through a sensitive area. Public objection. Unless it was a tunnel (sirius style).
It's a couple of miles as the crow flies. Not convinced the volume of product would warrant the enormous CapEx. Just my view.
ATB LB
Very good! An observation from a OS map study