Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video here.
Ponfeigh's post overlapped. OK it was 'over 200 tpm' of concentrate which is again consistent with 2700/12
I don't think the figures are "all over the place". The 2,700 concentrate, 1800 WO3 and 1400W are entirely consistent. I don't recall where the 200/month came from, although it is familiar. I suspect it might have been from one of MM's interviews, but was probably just a rough approximation.
Just a follow up. If we did hit that, I estimate that it would produce a revenue for the year of around $10 million. Probably getting on for break even.
The Roskill figures don't look too unreasonable to me. I have never been totally clear on WRES production figures. One stated is 2,700Tpa which I believe to be concentrate with 65% WO3. That then gives production of 1800Tpa WO3 which is what the June 2019 presentation states for Y1. WO3 then contains about 80% tungsten (by weight) which leads to the 1400Tpa 'nameplate' figure for W production quoted by Roskill. (Not quite sure where the 200T/month fits into this other than a rough approximation of something). Anyway that is 350T/quarter of W. Roskill is saying that we need to hit full production in the September quarter. I read than as being ready for full production in Q4. In that case they are assuming a total of 150T of W for Q2+Q3. That equates to approx 290T of 65% concentrate. Given where we are that may not be unreasonable.
Yugo, not everything on Google is fantasy or guess work. It is perfectly possible to use it to find accurate information as long as you are careful about the sites you believe. There are several references to the density of WO3 as approx 7.2g/cc on perfectly respectable looking sites. As I understand it, the WRES production figures state approx 200 tonnes/month of WO3 so I stand by my analysis.
Yugo, I think your 100gm/5cc is a bit optimistic, I think that is metallic tungsten. According to google WO3 is about 7gm/cc. I like to think of it his way. 100g is the weight of a smallish apple. But WO3 is about 10x more dense than an apple (0.7gm/cc). So it would require the table to be producing the volume of a small apple every 10 sec. That looks very likely from the video. The $64,000 (or is it million?) question is 'can this rate be maintained continuously?'.
As I've posted before, hitting target production requires a rate of around 100g/sec (assuming 24 hour working but allowing about 20% leeway). Hard to be sure but it looks promising if it is continuous.
It is thought to be lethal to around 1% not 0.1%. And that could be 600,000 people if the whole of the UK were infected (some estimates say 80% will be, so 'only' 480,000). That sounds a bit serious to me. And a friend of mine is a confirmed case so it is real.
Maybe the people on here who crow about companies going bust and people losing money would do well to reflect on this. You know who you are.
Not sure they really have high self esteem, much of it is bluff. That's why they are so sensitive to criticism or anyone disagreeing with them.
Safety, I thought your last sentence was going to end 'and we make many of them our leaders' ;-)
Maybe 1kg/s is a bit optimistic. However, by my calculation 200t/month requires a rate of 100g/sec assuming 24 hour, 24 day working. If that really is concentrate production, it must be somewhere near that. Hope my calculations are right!
OK, sorry. I misunderstood your position. I'm maybe a bit naive about market manipulation but if it that obvious I would have hoped that something would be done to investigate it. But then I'm probably naive about the reality of regulation in the financial sector in general.
OMR, I'm not sure I understand your attempt at irony. I thought your opinion was that the share price stayed low because the management was rubbish.
Reading the BUR RNS has definitely made me wonder about some of the large cancelled WRES trades we have seen.
Better dead than red
There's no need for insults Reddington. I'm firmly in the remain camp and have plenty of British values. I just happen to believe, with quite a lot of evidence, that leaving the EU would be a big mistake for the status and well being of the country. I have every right to argue that without being told to p**s off to France.
Franny, I'm not saying we know everything but we know £350m was a lie, we know that we can't leave with 'exactly the same benefits', we know it won't be 'the easiest trade deal in history', we know that we aren't going to be invaded by 70 million Turks. Just to name a few.
Oldie, Dominic Cummings, the chief architect of the Vote Leave campaign said after the event "Would we have won without the £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No". Maybe nobody voted leave only because of this message but it clearly was a significant factor. And the UK statistics agency said very clearly that it was misleading i.e. a polite way of saying it was a lie. So, leave won because of a lie. So yes, I think another vote, where the truth and reality of leaving are now known, is entirely appropriate.
Is the news about the Copper new? I don't recall seeing it before. Isn't that something that should have been in an RNS when the decision was taken?