Come and hear Shaun Day from Greatland Gold #GGP, Cathal Friel and Jeremy Skillington from Poolbeg Pharma #POLB, George Bennett from Rainbow Rare Earths #RBW and Helium One CEO David Minchin #HE1 present tomorrow evening. Register here.
The only reason they produced 9 times more than the same period last year was a problem with licensing meaning they didn't start any meaningful production in the first 6 months of last year which is reflected in the turnover value for first 6 months of last year compared to this year.
So it's a pretty empty claim in truth.
What would have been vastly more meaningful would have been them stating how much ore was processed in the last 6 months of last year because they have mentioned how much ore was processed for this first 6 months of this year. Then a direct comparison could be made.
Each wash plant will have a maximum capacity of throughput. It appears all 3 are the same size.
Prices were certainly lower than currently but not enough to stop them exploring at MT at the same time. They also extended the exploration license at Volchetundra to have a good go at exploring there.
Yes, the raise in prices means what they found there could be economical to mine now but they didn't do enough to book any resources at Volchetundra at the time so more work/drilling would be needed to get a more accurate idea of what is there but they have already explored what, at the time, they considered to be the most promising areas and some of those yielded nothing to warrant continued drilling until they found the 2 areas towards the end of their work there.
The 28 Sept 2009 RNS said that following substantial declines in PGM prices the 2 open pits at MT were considered uneconomic.
Volchetundra is one of the 9 JV areas.
The BOD have stated they have done 20,000m of prior drilling in some of the JV areas.
The only areas, other than WK and MT, that any drilling has been done are prior exploration license areas EUA held which were Volchetundra and Western Imadra. The possibility of 100's moz being at Volchetundra are highly unlikely. They explored there over a long period before walking away from it to concentrate on the MT area. They did find 2 areas which were suitable for open pit which they hoped was one larger area but wasn't. All the areas they previously explored would have been where magnetic surveys etc pointed to the best areas.
This comes back to a point I have been trying to make repeatedly and have just been called a deramper for and my answer has always been that I am putting across the reality.
The MT Maiden reserves RNS of 31 May 2017 said there was 1.9moz of Pd eq at MT. The detail of that RNS says that is what is in 2 economically viable open pits but also includes what surrounds and underlies those open pits.
So the viable open pits contained only part of the 1.9moz Pd eq except the BOD never said how much of the 1.9moz was viable at the time.
Since then the price increases have brought more of the resources/reserves that surround and underlie the 2 open pits into play however these extra resources/reserves are already accounted for in the original 1.9moz.
The 1.9moz was at a cut off grade of 0.8g/t. It is possible that a grade of lower than 0.8g/t is now economical in which case the 1.9moz figure would increase.
But that's the point though isn't it, that 9 times higher then pretty much zilch isn't anything impressive at all. Full years worth of production will be more revealing to how many kg's production there is compared to last year.
The BOD have said that JORC resource figures for the Rosgeo JV will be released shortly.
Mac says they can't be released until we own them.
Do we own all 9 areas.
Are there license transfers underway for anything other than Nyud and Moroshkovoe.
Do Nyud and Moroshkovoe make up 1 or 2 of the 9 areas.
How long has it taken to get Nyud and Moroshkovoe to the point where the first 75% will be owned with the license transfer.
So Mac is saying the only JORC resource figures coming shortly are from Nyud and Moroshkovoe as the other areas aren't even in the process of having licenses transferred yet as the BOD haven't decided which ones they will take on yet so it will be some time before they are owned by EUA.
If you look at the EUA presentation from a year ago you will see on page 20 that they were already expecting to hit the 1.7Mtpa throughput in 2024. I've never seen any mention of anything other than 1.7Mtpa throughput with an expected yield of 130koz.
There is no detail on old RNS's about the feasibility study where 1Mtpa was talked about.
Sorry, I was busy after my last post yesterday.
Your post 22.17 makes the same point I was trying to make. A Russian standard is a highly professional way of reporting because Russia makes so much of it's money from resources that it has to be professional and accurate.
JORC is simply a slightly different way of assessing resources which is more reliant on drill results. It isn't superior, just different. It is the most used and recognised system of reporting and EUA have said it was a requirement of their listing to report to JORC. MT now has JORC reserves and resources which suddenly appeared in their last presentation although without any detail or breakdown of them.
The point I have been trying to make is that reporting to JORC is not some magical way of massively increasing upon the 105moz Pt eq in the JV area which is clear so many here want to believe is the case.
I invested early at an average of 0.47p and sold the majority at high 30's and into 40's which is in my posting history. I can assure you I am exceptionally happy with what my investment returned. I am interested in the JV but am waiting on detail for it which the BOD seem reluctant to release. Who picks up drilling costs going forward as Rosgeo will be drilling, do Rosgeo retain any royalty payments on production, what are the other 8 areas, how much of the 105moz is inferred resource and how much reserves, what metals etc are in each area etc. These things are very important to me because I invest on the reality of what is there and not the hope of what might be there, more so when a company has reached a value of $1b odd.
It's clear from your last post that you don't understand the difference between a resource and a reserve. You need to as they are vastly different and have different values placed on them.
A Russian standard is no different to a JORC in CONFIRMATION. What is important is the level of confirmation, whether it's to Russian or JORC. An inferred resource has a low level of confirmation, a measured reserve has a high level of confirmation.
WK is an alluvial deposit and is different. EUA previously said WK had inferred resources of over 10 tons of raw PGMs, they proved up 4 and a bit. When NN first started drilling Vuruchuaivench in 2004 press releases said it was believed to contain 350t of platinum group metals, this was the inferred resources. When they finished drilling it it had 3.3moz of PGM's or 93.5t of reserves and resources. Not all of that would end up being economical to recover.
The fact that WK has been proven to higher levels than it was previously means some of the 43% extra they previously recovered will be covered by the closer spaced drilling because, as you say, Russian standard plays safe at lower levels of proof as does JORC to a different degree.
You say JORC = booked reserves. No, JORC books to proven, probable or possible and only something with enough available information will reach a reserve level. Rosgeo have said Poaz estimates are P2 level, low level inferred resources based on 14 drills in 11sqkms. A proper measured proven JORC reserve might need drilling to 15m spacing, 4300 odd drills per 1sqkm.
Sorry but so much of what you say is not fact.
JORC is no more of a guarantee than anything booked to a Russian standard.
JORC, as with Russian standard, is a means of booking reserves and resources dependant on how much information is available. How much information is available sets to what level anything is booked at and goes from inferred to estimated to proven.
If the JV areas have Russian standard inferred resources then they will be a JORC equivalent to inferred resources.
Any mining company will have some understanding of how JORC relates to Russian standard and the person/company EUA are using is experienced in converting Russian standard to JORC. The same data used to get to the Russian standard results is used for JORC. JORC does not magically make reserves and resources appear from no where.
Yes JORC is the most recognised standard used and EUA have previously suggested it is a requirement of their listing to have things booked to JORC.
It cannot officially state that there are lots of PGMs etc and you will be digging them up for 20/30 years if there isn't enough information available to state that as fact.
That doesn't mean it isn't there, it means there could be years of drilling and many millions of pounds needed before it is confirmed as there if it is there.
My understanding is that the fact that something is added in brackets means it's an aside to what the main sentence is saying and you can read the sentence by ignoring what is in the brackets which makes it clearer.
"Successful signing of Rosgeo JV in which Eurasia will gain 75% equity stake in 9 PGM and battery metal assets with a total of 104.6 Moz of Pt eq."
If it was written as follows with the brackets continuing further then it would be as you suggest.
"Successful signing of Rosgeo JV in which Eurasia will gain 75% equity stake in 9 PGM and battery metal assets (four of which are post Russian feasibility study with state approved reserves with a total of 104.6Moz of Pt eq)."
However the bit within the brackets which relates to 4 of the areas doesn't extend to cover the 104.6Moz part. It is there to say 4 of the 9 areas are at a more advanced stage than the other 5 areas.
The 104.6Moz will be mainly inferred resources so a long way from anyone being able to say that much actually exists or, if it did, that it would be economical to mine.
JORC is a way of quantifying reserves and resources just as the Russian system is.
There are levels within JORC and the Russian system that go from inferred/exploratory resources at the low end of the value chain, up to measured proven reserves at the highest end of the value chain.
So if the Russian system is saying you have a flea ridden old nag that's fit for the knackers yard then having it assessed under JORC is not going to magically make it a pure white winged flying Unicorn.
The same information will be used by WA to give a JORC resource as was used to give the 105moz Pt equivalent.
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.
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.
If you read the RNS 10/10/16 about the EPCC contract with Sinosteel it clearly says a processing facility for 1.7mtpa ore capacity.
It also says the EPC contract is being advanced as part of discussions with third parties for the sale or JV of the project (MT)>
If you read the RNS 5/12/18 about the MT mine permit it says the money Sinosteel have agreed to put up to build the processing plant "remains on Sinosteel's balance sheet until such time as the plant is operating at full capacity of 130,000 oz per year and to designed specification."
So 1.7mtpa of processing ability hoping to return 130,000 oz of PGM's has been out there for years.
What has never been mentioned anywhere is the first FS working on 1mtpa because they never released any detail of the first FS (no surprise there).
But suddenly saying it's a 70% increase looks good and most here are buying into it so job done in one respect but not in relation to the SP.
They simply say what grades they are expecting from L and WN in the last RNS, they don't say those grades have increased.
Someone questioned what was expected from the mining plan recently and I said what I expected was for the BOD to deliver on what they have been pushing for a while now, that being 1.7mtpa ore throughput with 125,000 oz of PGM's.
Whilst they are saying past FS said 1mtpa I don't recall them ever making that public so suggesting 1.7mtpa is a 70% increase when in presentations etc they have always talked about 1.7mtpa is strange.
Bear in mind also that recovery of PGM's is via floatation with the BOD saying they expect +80% recovery and Pt recovery is better than Pd recovery then the end oz's sold will be different and any basket price needs to be adjusted for the lower recovery of Pd.
Finally getting some detail which is good.