RE: Comments about FAR resource from BMN telegram chat.6 Jun 2021 13:25
Thanks for the reply loudspeaker.
I don't feel as though I have twisted your words as I copied them into the first post here. That's what you wrote.
You state the their process will be highly polluting, when, based on the VSA document which I would trust, states that is not the case. You also imply that their deposit is that same as the Chinese deposits, and again, that is clearly not the case.
I've cut some key points from the pdf I linked to earlier.
The fundamental difference between FAR’s main project, Balasausqanqiq and its peer group is the geology. This directly
informs the low upfront capital, lower cost processing cost and overall robust economic model and is the primary factor
which leads to a world class vanadium resource and project, in our view. Although there are other Black Shale deposits
in the world, they have few other similarities with Balasausqandiq and do not have the necessary characteristics in terms
of grade, scale and ease of processing to support commercial mining.
The primary resource combined with exploration target is huge with upside potential well beyond the scope of the
current project parameters. The JORC 2012 Indicated and Inferred resource covers only a portion of the first of five ore
bodies whose surface expression extends over 40km. Carbonaceous shales and shists are the primary host rock for
vanadium mineralisation and extend from surface with a typical thickness of 4-14m. The JORC resource over Ore Body 1
is 24mnt while the combined exploration target across Ore Bodies 2-5 ranges from a further 77-104mnt. By way of
confirmation, the resource determined to Kazakh, GKZ standards, indicates a total resource of 71mnt, notwithstanding
that this was not to full depth.
There are a number of other shale deposits globally in the US, China, Scandinavia and Australia but it is important to
understand that the components of shale deposits can be very different and there is little commonality in processing
methods, costs and recoveries. There is some ostensible similarity of Chinese “stone coal” deposits but these generally
have high acid costs due to the acid consuming components of the ore and operate as swing producers, only operating
when prices are high. FAR is the first to derisk and demonstrate a successful commercial process on a large scale deposit;
benefitting from an ore which has few acid consuming components. The result is low acid consumption and furthermore,
Kazakhstan hash very low acid costs as a result of surplus sulphur generated from the desulphurisation of oil, as well as
significant smelter production.
The document you refer to is a generic processing in relation to the Chinese type Stone Coal, but that is not what FAR have.
Do you now accept that as being the case?
... to be continued ...
Sign In
Follow the stocks
