Member Info for richam

Devonwolf, I forgot to mention tin. Before the extension tin nampelate was 462tpa https://www.sendspace.com/file/td6lj3 I don't know how you arrive at 450t after the extension. Applying Wolf's prudent 20% increase, I get 554tpa.

Correction: The planning extension had been issued in Nov. 2016 rather than 2017.

Devonwolf, your numbers appear a tad on the pessimistic side IMO. Here is why: First of all, I am puzzled to see nameplate becoming the subject of debate in the first place. These numbers were always crystal clear ever since the BFS had been published back in 2011. The finding were published https://www.sendspace.com/file/o0rqac and haven't been changed ever since. In 2013 the EPC contract was awareded to build exactly this plant: https://www.sendspace.com/file/luscf1 and when the offtake agreements were announce, the exact same numbers were cited again: https://www.sendspace.com/file/cwc0kt 345.000 MTU = 3.450t WO3 in concentrate is Hemerdon's nameplate production capacity, always was! Of course this is the number that Richard Lucas confirmed (rounded up to 3.500t). Then, in November of 2017 the Devon County Council issued its approval for planning permission extension to 2036 and 7 days operation. Now it's a simple rule of three. 345.000 is nameplate output at 5,5 days. Divide it by 5,5 and you'll get nameplate output for a 1 day per week operation. Multiply it by 7 and you have the nameplate output for the new 7 days operation. Essentially you simply apply a factor of 1,273. Namplate at 7 days operations should be up to 27% higher than 5,5 days' before adjusting for increased maintenance. And that's how Wolf came up with the 4.500t they cited in their video which was published shortly after the extension had been granted. 3.500 * 1,273 = 4.456, rounded up to 4.500t. With regard to increased maintenance you could go with a slightly lower +25%. Wolf, however, publishes a much more prudent +20% figure resulting in a new 4.200t per annum nameplate capacity which should be achievable rather easily: https://www.sendspace.com/file/zso53i Bottom line: The numbers are crystal clear and there is no reason for debate in this regard.

This is a prime example of how uninformed postings stir confusion! You mix up WO3 and concentrate! The 5.000t / a lorry per day refers to CONCENTRATE whereas nameplate production refers to WO3.

Devonwolf, daytrader's feedback numbers and mine are the same. Wolf just rounded them. I had said: "Given the 3Mtpa [exactly the same as RL] throughput target on a 5,5/7 basis we just have to divide the 3Mtpa by 5,5 and multiply it by 7. The result is a 3,8Mtpa throughput target based on a "24/7" operation. The same applies to production. Output was planned to be 345.000 MTU [RL rounded it to 3.500t] per annum. Divided by 5,5 and multiplied by 7 -> 439.090 MTU per annum [RL rounded it to 4.500t]" 3Mtpa and 3.500t are the pre-extension numbers. (5,5/7) 3,8Mtpa and 4.500t are the after-extension numbers. (24/7) It's that simple. Although the company had announced it had "returned to 24/7 operation" from January, RL sticks to the old 5,5/7 numbers. Think about why that is.

Thanks for confirming my numbers. The fact that Wolf sticks with the old pre-extension figures is quite telling, isn't it?

https://www.sendspace.com/file/3v7d2t

Probably Mr. Knowitall refers to tungsten metal. It's a pity Wolf doesn't produce any tungsten metal. They produce a tungsten trioxide concentrate (65% WO3).

Aha. So Roskill knows better than Wolf. Why didn't you have a look at the Wolf Corporate Video as I said? It would take no more than 2 minutes to do so. But obviously that's too much to ask for. Why learn anything, eh? They 100% confirm what I had said, speak of 4500t tungsten per year and 130t concentrate per week. You can't have the most basic figures right but keep complaining everybody other than you was wrong. Do you really have to make up lies to make your case? Isn't the truth strong enough to support your claims? What's wrong with you?

So, according to your "logic", ouput is decreased when operating hours are increased. Goodness me.

Devonwolf, the numbers are in the public domain, have been published i.a. in the bankable feasibility study summary, and are readily accessible on Wolf's website, Sedar, and other sources. Drakelands was planned to achieve 3Mtpa throughput based on a 5,5/7 days operation (work ends on Saturdays at 6 p.m. and re-starts on Mondays 6 a.m.). In some documents you can see it's been labeled a 6 days operation but that refers to work on 6 days per week (Monday - Saturday) but 1/4 of Mondays as well as 1/4 of Saturdays is lost. Given the 3Mtpa throughput target on a 5,5/7 basis we just have to divide the 3Mtpa by 5,5 and multiply it by 7. The result is a 3,8Mtpa throughput target based on a "24/7" operation. The same applies to production. Output was planned to be 345.000 MTU per annum. Divided by 5,5 and multiplied by 7 -> 439.090 MTU per annum (~110.000 MTU per quarter or 8.444 MTU per week). This answers one of your questions. 439.090 MTU are 4.391 tonnes of WO3 ("tungsten"). Let's have a closer look at the weekly production figure. Wolf, according to the off-take agreement, is supposed to deliver a 65% WO3 concentrate. Let's assume Wolf was delivering exactly that. This means: At nameplate, the 8.444 MTU account for 65% of the total weight of the weekly concentrate deliveries. (As you know, 1 MTU = 10kg so 84.440kg WO3 account for 65% of the total weight). Accordingly, 100% of the weekly concentrate deliveries weigh 129.907kg or roughly 130t. In other words: Wolf must ship 130t of concentrate per week at 100% nameplate output. Bear that in mind when you have a look at the weekly deliveries to GTP! Now have peek at Wolf's corporate video. http://www.wolfminerals.com.au/IRM/content/default.aspx Go to 1:32. Then go to 1:40. I hope you find confirmed what I have said. BTW, at 1:50 as well as at 2:22 you can see many white bags containing the pre-concentrate that was fed to the refinery on weekends during Q4. And last but not least, "tungsten" and "concentrate" are not the same thing. "Tungsten" refers to WO3 which is in fact tungsten trioxide (I know this is confusing). Concentrate, however, is a mixture comprising 65% WO3 and 35% dirt. That's why 4.500 tonnes of WO3 ("tungsten") are contained in 6.923 tonnes of 65%-concentrate.

LOL, so it's "this year" now? Just a few minutes ago it still was "September" 2018! "Finger in the sky" is an excellent description of what your Q4 and Q1 nameplate predictions turned out to be! So, let me take note of the fact that you were unable to present us any prediction made by a Wolf representative re profit or nameplate.

You said we were going to see nameplate output by the end of Q4. Actual output in Q4, however, was 39,5% of namelate. Then you said we were going to reach nameplate during Q1. Have you already given up on this one? Meanwhile you come up with yet another nameplate prediction. Now it's "In profit by end of June 18 Nameplate end of Sept18". What's next? 2019? And BTW, I had just documented how wrong our CEO's assessment was a year ago. In fact, my own assessment was much closer to reality. Show me, where did Mr. Lucas or any other Wolf representative predict "nameplate" or "profit"? And don't yet again tell us he said to you, on the phone. That, obviously, is just YOUR FALSE INTERPRETATION of what he REALLY said.

As usual, you're wrong. You came up with that lie before and I corrected you already. That, unfortunately, does not prevent you from coming up with the same false statement again. So here we go again: Wolf announce the turnaround plan it its 30/06/2016 press release: "Consequently, Wolf and GRES are discussing a work program involving equipment changes and design improvements aimed at achieving continuous operation at capacity, enhancement of recoveries and general plant improvements. Production improvements are expected during implementation of the program, however completion of all elements of the program is required before the full impact on processing plant performance can be ascertained." In its annual report, dated 24/10/2016 the turnaround plan's time line was stated precisely: "In the processing plant performance has been impacted by core equipment manufacturing faults, leading to unplanned downtime and as a result Wolf and GR Engineering Services (GRES) have formulated a work program involving equipment changes and design modifications aimed at achieving continuous operation at design parameters, expected by mid-2017."

BTW, what he also said during this presentation: "So we took over this plant just over a year ago. As I said the ore body hasn't been behaving itself perfectly but we can see that it will. We've also had some challenges with the equipment which we're overcoming. So this thing has been ramping up and we expect it to hit nameplate probably in the middle of next year [2017]." So IMO either Mr. Clark had no idea of what the problems really were OR, if he had, he misrepresented to investors. At the end of 2017 the plant's output was 39,5% of WO3 nameplate.

Excerpt from a Dec. 2016 presentation gtiven by Russell Clark: "We're now blasting everything. Originally for the first 6 or 7 months we were just free digging material. We had found that the very top of the orebody has caused us a bit of grief through the processing plant. It's very very fine material which tended to fill up the fine side of the circuit but the ore is getting coarser and we expect the ore to be behaving itself properly between March and June next year [2017] and then ongoing." That fully supports my view of Wolf mining hard granite in H2-2017.

Devon, you wrote: "but back in 2013/2014 when APT prices were higher, It seems that they took a commercial decision to approve, or accept a single design solution for the coarser type of material and work through the kaolin at risk." That ("at risk") is not accurate IMO. The softer material was well known and taken into consideration, evidenced by an evisaged recovery rate in soft granite of 58% as opposed to hard granite's 66%: "The two primary mineralogical domains were classified as Soft Granite and Hard Granite. The Soft Granite material tended to be clayey and kaolinised material nearer the surface, whilst the Hard Granite material was more competent and from deeper sections of the deposit." "Wolf has CONFIRMED AND REPLICATED the tungsten recoveries achieved by AMAX in its 1982 feasibility study with tungsten recovery of 58% for the Soft Granite and 66% for the Hard Granite". So it is quite clear that the kaolinised and clayed material is exactly what was expected. However, as we all know, even the lower 58% figure was missed by a wide margin (mostly recovery achieved was below the 30% mark). And all that despite the fact that the tungsten grade in the ore was better than predicted in the reserve. Better grades normally would lead to better recoveries which renders actual results an even bigger miss. Bottom line: The soft granite is a lame excuse and CAN NOT reasonably explain ultra-low recoveries. What's more, if you have a look at the photos of the pit http://www.dm-community.co.uk/blasting/ you'll notice an inner, deeper part ("hole") and an outer much shallower part ("ring"). Judging by these pictures Wolf decided to go deep as quickly as possible in order to mine hard granite sooner as would normally have been the case. Wolf was mining almost exclusively hard granite in H2-2017 but recoveries did not improve nearly as much as hoped. The Q4 recovery rate was ~30,4%, another big miss compared to the 66% target. While I fully expect futher improvements in in the near term, I am pretty sure Wolf won't be able to run this plant anywhere near namplate output in the foreseable future.

"The return to 24/7 operation is a myth"...... Richam I think you need to re read the section headed " Processing Plant" Daytrader, I think you need to understand the Wolf operating updates. They list 30th / 31st January 10th / 11th February 13th / 14th February 20th / 21st February 27th / 28th February 6th / 7th March 13th / 14th March 20th / 21st March as front end shutdowns. Is this your understanding of 24/7 operation?

"Richam...The shipment which arrived on 13/1 would have left in January. A cargo ship takes about 6 or 7 days Southampton to New York ...so maybe you could recalculate your figures" Daytrader, I said it left in December because I knew it had left in December. Also, the leave date is documented in the BOL.

During Q4 when the front end was shut down on weekends, the refinery was fed with previously stored pre-concentrate, hence continued to produce tungsten and tin on a 24/7 basis. Regarding outlook: Should currently scheduled weekly maintenance work (see Feb.08 Update http://www.dm-community.co.uk/low-frequency-noise/ ) require the refinery to be shut down, this will certainly have a negative impact on production volume. Should maintenance work affect the front end only the extent of its effect on production depends on whether or not the front end is able to run at 7/5 of the refinery's throughput capacity. Wolf's comments indicate this is not the case. Bottom line: Wolf's operational updates as well as GTP deliveries hint lower shipment volumes in Q1 unless some major breakthough is achieved and March shipments increase massively over Jan. and Feb.