Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
The positive of this first (hopefully) low offer is it's a small percentage of the total cost of bringing the mine online.
If £1b is needed to be spent to get the mine running then upping the offer to £200m is doubling the return to shareholders but only adding 10% to the actual cost ie £1.1b v's £1.2b.
Yeah, like I give a flying **ck.
Here's something on Rhodium content for some of the potential JV areas.
Bear in mind the intervals containing the PGM's can be very narrow.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-PGE-content-ppm-in-the-Cu-Ni-ores-and-at-the-PGE-occurrencies-of-the-Monchegorsk_tbl2_257307181
Hi Amur_isagogo,
As there's no defined description of either a Tier 1 or Tier 1 Scale resource then EUA can describe it as such if they want, whether people within the wider mining industry would pay attention to it or not is a different matter.
I haven't suggested they have exaggerated JORC or are playing a game with shareholders.
What I am saying is you need to know a bit about the industry you are investing in to know what part of any JORC is relevant.
An inferred resource is one where the confidence in the resource is low so saying only part of the resource reaches inferred resource level is not good.
So an NPV of $1b on a measured reserve has meaning because the confidence in that resource and it's accuracy and ability to be mined profitably is very high.
An NPV of $1b on a resource where only part has reached inferred level has far less meaning because the accuracy is deemed to be very low.
Tier 1 and Tier 1 Scale are different things.
WA did not refer to NKT being Tier 1 Scale, EUA did.
What WA said was only parts of the deposit had been explored to a level to be called inferred resources which means any NPV figures or references to Tier 1 Scale might be considered a bit premature.
1 of 2 mines SS bought has reserves of 134kt of Ni and 49kt of Cu. Resources of 1,383kt of Ni and 446kt of Cu.
It's a top 10 nickel sulphide asset with "outstanding infrastructure" and first quartile production costs with a 7 year LOM for the open pit and 27 years potential for underground with considerable upside for surrounding areas over which they have exploration rights.
Over $1b has been spent proving reserves and resources and to reach a working mine with processing plant in place so it can immediately provide revenue and profits. SS are not taking on any debt and paid $1b for this and another low cost producing copper mine.
https://thevault.exchange/?get_group_doc=245/1635227228-sibanye-stillwater-acquire-santa-rita-nickel-mine-serrote-copper-mine-brazil-26oct2021.pdf
If you start looking at what Sibanye Stillwater have bought in Brazil it raises big questions about the current value of the NKT nickel mine where only parts of the resource are able to reach inferred levels.
Hi JackoDLad,
NN mined out what were about 30 rich veins of Nickel and Copper at NKT. What WAI have reported on are the more disseminated ores that were left over which have a lower content of Nickel and Copper.
You need to read the detail in any JORC report and not just focus on the headline figures for resource amounts and NPV.
From the report for NKT:
"WAI considers exploration undertaken at the NKT deposit to be sufficient for parts of the deposit to be classified as inferred mineral resources as defined by JORC Code".
So some parts aren't even able to reach inferred levels of confidence in what's there.
So a fair bit more work needed before anyone can say for sure what's there regarding the underground mine so it can be properly valued.
I've referred to statements made by the BOD of EUA and pointed to the RNS's where those statements were made.
If you have a problem with the statements then why not take it up with the BOD rather than acting like a child.
Question is what do they refer to as their initial strategy.
RNS 4 Dec 19 had their strategy as an expansion strategy on the Kola peninsula as a future palladium district.
Then there's the sale strategy.
RNS 26 Aug 21 has JN saying they are enthusiastic to create a globally significant PGM and battery metals company with our partner Rosgeo.
If you sell over 75% of your assets then it's hard to create a globally significant company.
I've been going back through my notes and remember discussing these Rosgeo reports with Monyboz and pointed out then that the figures they mention are potential of the area and not proven as is mentioned in the text.
When NN first started exploring the Vuruchnavaitch deposit it was believed to contain 350t of PGM's.
After proving it up it had 100t of PGM's although no in depth mining plan was done to say how much of that would be economical to mine.
https://www.neweurope.eu/article/norilsk-discovers-platinum-murmansk/
Doesn't the forming of the new subsidiary company for the Nickel assets cause a problem if the assumption here is that the sale of assets is for MT and it's flanks because it implies most of the NKT area of the flanks is now being treated as a separate area and held in a separate company to the rest of MT and it's flanks.
So de we assume that less of the assets are now being sold.
Tesla have currently inked a deal for an offtake agreement with Talon, they haven't paid $1.5b for 75,000 tonnes of nickel.
Talon aren't expecting to produce until 2026 and the offtake is for 75,000t over 6 years linked to LME prices at the time it's bought.
Talon have indicated resources with an average of 1.91% nickel, 1.02% copper, 0.41g/t Pt and 0.26g/t Pd.
NKT has inferred resources with an average of 0.28% nickel, 0.13% copper, 0.09g/t Pt and 0.43g/t Pd.
Extraction costs aren't the bee all of it, profit per tonne of ore mined and processed at Talon will be far higher than at NKT because the contained metals per tonne of ore are so much higher.
Hi Pompeyrod,
Only example I can give is for MCRO, dividend announced 1st July, on 23rd July they gave a currency exchange rate for the dividend (announced in cents but paid to UK holders as pence) saying dividend would be paid 6th August to holders on the share register at 23rd July.
Hi Jambo813,
That's as I read it as well.
Also the 80% is an intent as opposed to set in stone and there are provisions within the policy to alter that as ultimately the BOD recommend any dividend amount and can alter the policy at any time.