Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Hi GB, I think there will be others who have similar questions and it is only right that the company attempt to address those questions. Whilst they don�t they will leave a lot of people in limbo and that angst will heighten. Tough gig but that is what running a company is all about. It�s also not all about the PFS or studies post that. People want clarity on what and when. If you know everything stacks up that is one thing, but when does the study become reality and when does funding negotiation start etc? There needs to be a headline program at least. V
Mat, That is not normally a PFS function. It is for the outputs for the BFS/DFS. Not sure why they are looking at these now unless they are undertaking DFS activities whilst the going is good. Hard to see why the PFS has been held back but there must be a reason. The work to get to PFS level must be complete by now and it is being held back for a reason. I don�t buy the audit bit. I could get it done much quicker. Not sure what management are doing, there is very little planning here being relayed to the investors which is completely contra to normal company operations unless it�s bad news, then it is a regular occurrence. The PFS has to be released to the Investors. It�s a potential game changer for many and would underpin/or otherwise any investment decision by current and potential holders. Any conjecture by other posters is simply that �conjecture� including this post. Some of the fantasy comments are quite bizarre to say the least. One thing is certain though, the financing will not come on the back of a PFS directly for the project. Entertaining suitors is a possibility and a future deal (MOU) is not out of the question, but the jurisdiction and current politics are against this. I think people�s view of the Chinese iis a little myopic. They do like a bargain but they are also better planners/long term thinkers and will not just jump in. Especially in Russia. It�s not so long ago border skirmishes were rife in these areas. My abiding view of this company is that they have lost the plot or know something detrimental to the overall project. News flow points to this, as do the things like metal balancing, which is out of kilter. Also holding back the PFS, I could have done two in he time they have done one, is also an indicator there is something awry. The EV thing seems a bit of a new diversion from the main business which is development of a minor. If not they can see he current sentiment is going south big time from PIs so why wouldn�t they put that toned if they could? I�m not sure what is going on but to me something smells. I know there are a lot of people who won�t hear a contrary word against the company but surely it is time to ask the questions that need answering. Don�t think it will all come good in the end either, the stats are against it. V
http://www.lbma.org.uk/assets/events/AR17/S4_Gaylard.pdf I think this got lost in the morass of the usual post RNS messages. There is also a book available, if you are inclined, developed here in Qld, called An Introduction to Metal Balancing and Reconciliation. UQ eSpace 2008. (University of Queensland). Hopefully this helps those enquiringl what metal Balancing is. V
http://www.lbma.org.uk/assets/events/AR17/S4_Gaylard.pdf Look up also an introduction to metal balancing and reconciliation. UQ eSpace. 2008. (University of Queensland) Hopefully they clarify your issues with the term. V
Correct beeshoney, Everyone is missing the point that the banks don�t give out finance like 2007 pre gfc anymore. And the tougher the conditions overall the more difficult to get funding. Fact. Equally I have two minors in very good jurisdictions, licensed and BFSs full stacked and great resource - in real terms better than AMC - Funding? Don�t be silly. V
Al this talk of attacks, egos and whatever. It�s a message board, if you take your financial advice from a message board or you think it affects the share price you are a moron and deserve to be skint. Time to give this a miss from now on methinks. As a parting point - I think the crew who thinks the BoD are not doing a very good job are actually right in this instance. However it�s more to do with where the mine is than anything else. That is the legacy of jurisdiction and being in a big, unconnected area in the middle of nowhere. V
If they can get their $#!t together DB I will reinvest. But like I have reiterated on numerous occasions, I don�t see a true plan of action, it all seems rather tenuous, 8 paragraphs of which a substantial part is on something that will increase the outlay and loans / dilution significantly via the last RNS, on a technology that may or may not work (Zinc may be a big disruptor for example) is not giving me warm feelings (my opinion is get the bloody thing developed properly and plan for any future development a bit more circumspectly than jumping from one idea to he next like �thought bubbles�) and tbh With what I want to do I don�t need to be in at the beginning now anyway, so I can bide my time. But I do hold out hope for them and I can be honest with them in my views. It�s been a long time and I have taken profits a few times so they�ve been good all round. V
!!!!!!Boom!!!!well the following just exploded anyway - �The construction is scheduled for completion by the end of 2018. The plant should reach its full capacity by the end of 2019: the volume of production and processing will be 6 million tons of ore per year. Try �physically Impossible� especially on$10m funding lol V
Hi Julian, This is the preso from BHP on their developments on this here in Australia. Also there is a report in the AFR (Australian Financial Review) type in a google search on BHP Nickel Sulphate Plant to see if you can get access. V https://www.bhp.com/-/media/documents/media/reports-and-presentations/2017/171710_australiannickelconferencepresentation.pdf I�m also thinking they are looking at separate copper processing to look at opportunities there too. I think the quoted price for the extended Nickel Sulphate Plant is Western Australia was $49m but don�t quote me on that.
Hi Ary82, my own view on the building of the road is based around the company showing the whole project is viable to the government (if they are indeed going to support with preferential loans). Previously road rates per KM have been mentioned. Now, via this RNS, we find there is still to be a major decision making process on the route and how it stacks up wrt construction constraints. Therefore by definition this has been dropped from way back and is only now being picked up again. With the work to be carried out this year and possibly into next to get the road into a viable proposition on paper I.e. design, constructors won�t be in a position to undertake full costing or timelines. It matters not whether that is at PFS or DFS. You, regardless of other factors, still have to have the prerequisite detail to undertake the build. This is the same for many aspects of this project. What doesn�t surprise me is hearing the CEO is going to pack the PFS with detail up to DFS in key areas - great - but for the whole package you still need a full DFS across all aspects as they are an integrated whole. Eg the project might not pay if the road and mining detail is robust but the processing and smelting isn�t and vice versa. The permutations are endless so that is why you need a fundamental plan of what you are going to do. All this tells you is there is no firm path forward. It�s a dogs breakfast. TDT is correct here in one of his posts on this RNS. The company don�t seem to have a firm plan. They float from one whim to another. These whims, such as processing resource to EV quality are not cheap, the plant cost multiple 10�s of millions and needs so much work to investigate, plan, supply and operate. IMHO Amur has lost the plot, great resource, good region for end clients but still in a poor jurisdiction for loans, attracting Instos and major backers and generally getting to market. The project team seems out of its depth wrt delivering a full project case never mind a project - which they never were going to do. I also think at some point somebody will step in with a much more cheeky offer than before and the thing will progress that way. Again I�m with TDT, they don�t know what they are doing. V
Without looking at the comments in too much detail it seems that there will be further works to PFS and DFS based around EV viability. This is a good move but time consuming. Some of this years activities listed are also time consuming and due in the PFS. Good to see the DFS mentioned again and more realistic. All the conjecture about no DFS looks like being put to bed. About time too. You don�t get funding for $500m without one usually (well at all really). I�m actually with Schach on the other channel and RY from his previous comments about 2019 DFS - with EV technology, bulk samples, quality and build assessments and studies this will be at least the end of 2019 for the DFS. It could be well worth it though with the EV viability confirmed. V