GreenRoc Accelerates their World Class Project to Production as Early as 2028. Watch the full video here.
It loathes me to say it, as I really want the Parys Mountain project to succeed, but the PEA was in my view a bit of an ‘own goal’.
Some of the negatives for me were:
- The increased capital costs to circa £100m to get the mine up and running;
- The reduced IRR to below 25%;
- The very conservative base metal prices used in the calculations;
- The increase in the payback period from 4 years on the previous study to 5 years on the new PEA;
Also, let’s not forget that two thirds of the total 18m tonnes resource is inferred. Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure the metals will be in situ, but the Finance gurus who will crunch the numbers and will ultimately determine the outcome would much prefer ‘indicated’ resources.
At an SP of 3p (Mcap of £7m) a couple of months ago this was a decent punt. However, with the current Mcap of almost £18m I fear that there will be very few buyers / investors at this price.
I hope I’m proved wrong.
AIMO. DYOR
It’s clear that this £3.75m is not needed for the Perseverance drilling and this money will be used as working capital for the other projects in Trinidad and Suriname over the next 18 months or so.
However, if progress aboard the IceMax was positive, why would you raise now at 2p; why not wait for a month until liquid gold has been struck and the SP is in the 4p to 6p range and then do the raise at that stage?
DYOR. AIMO
Spenfold - don’t get ahead of yourself.
Our resident expert has warned us of the importance of waiting for the PEA for Parys and the message was along the lines of ‘If the payback period for the project is significantly longer than 3 years’ we have a problem and the metals are likely to remain in the ground. Harsh I know, but apparently that’s how it works out there! DYOR
‘So there’s a big chunk of the difference’.
1/8th is not a big chunk of the difference. 24c vs $15 is approximately 1/60th, so 1/8th is not a ‘big chunk’.
Some of the ‘experts’ need to sort their maths out.
Be careful what you post on here as it will copied, quoted and dissected by certain posters - lol
Good luck all genuine holders
What a bonanza day for the MM’s. Plenty of PI’s shafted and the MM’s have accumulated billions of shares across all sectors at bargain prices.
Christmas arrives every year for the MM’s and it’s no surprise that it’s arrived early this year.
What a bonanza day for the MM’s. Plenty of PI’s shafted and the MM’s have accumulated billions of shares across all sectors at bargain prices.
Christmas arrives every year for the MM’s and it’s no surprise that it’s arrived early this year.
What a bonanza day for the MM’s. Plenty of PI’s shafted and the MM’s have accumulated billions of shares across all sectors at bargain prices.
Christmas arrives every year for the MM’s and it’s no surprise that it’s arrived early this year.
What a bonanza day for the MM’s. Plenty of PI’s shafted and the MM’s have accumulated billions of shares across all sectors at bargain prices.
Christmas arrives every year for the MM’s and it’s no surprise that it’s arrived early this year.
Instead of looking at stuff from 10 years ago from another company, I suggest that everyone has a look at the SML website where in the Investors section > Presentations, you’ll find a detailed plan / presentation on LCCM from 2019.
Page 26 details Paltridge North and it clearly states that the cost of production is $1.5 per lb which is approximately 50% of the value of Copper at $3 per lb.
Fira’s Post at 9.34 this morning stating that the project does not stack up because of high production costs has had 5 likes / recommendations; so there’s clearly some support behind that post.
I think I’m done here. Over and out.
Fira - I don’t get what you are saying.
We’ve been told that production costs including the mining element and processing (leaching) costs are circa 50% so I can’t understand your point?
Clearly there will also be logistical / transportation costs to move the Copper Cement down to Adchem in Adelaide, but those costs will be minimal surely?
Trojan - you’re right, the resource is proven and the Copper is there. It’s the leaching process where some uncertainty may lie, particularly with the additional stages now proposed for the finings, but it should work.
I totally agree with Marshal - let’s get the money together and get going. How about a £1m raise at 0.50p and a £1m loan over 12 months. Once we start producing 100 tonnes of copper cement each month, the SP will respond very quickly. I’m waiting for RichyP to return to the board.....
GLA
Trojan - some talk by SW on the other board that unless a project has a payback period of less than 3 years it may not be viable.
That’s one good thing about LC - the payback period is less than 12 months - surely its a no brainier especially now we only need $2m?
SW - Is a 3 year payback period a standard / benchmark for the mining sector?
It’s a tough call to rule out / state that something will never be built if the payback period for a project is 4 years or beyond. I suppose there are dozens of projects around the world and presumably only the best (most profitable) 5% to 10% will ever get funded?
So, in that respect, SW is correct and the Parys Mountain PEA is much more important and if the proposals don’t point to an early payback then it may remain dormant for ever?
For the layman on here (like many others I suspect), we think it looks like a great project. However, once the Financers get their calculators out, they’ll determine within minutes whether or not it’s financially viable. They’ll ask themselves what’s the financial risk to us, what’s the NPV, what total capital is needed to become operational and what is the length of the payback on the investment. All in my own opinion. DYOR