Zenyatta Free Speech Board Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Zenyatta Free Speech Board

ZEN 77.48

0.0%

Nov 21 4:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: NuclearCrystals	6/21/2015 6:27:20 PM
	of 22811

Cost/benefit analysis for Albany circuits. Is that what actually drove the decision to walk back the NAOH and forego the recycling circuit? Did they weigh the capes/opex metrics of adding the recycling circuit because at the extreme NOAH charge it definitely would be necessary …………. against a drastically reduced NAOH charge and subsequent lower purity, allowing them to drop the costly recycling circuit and not significantly increasing what was going to be a huge CAPEX on its own? If that's the case ……… one could likely add another $20 million or so(?) to the current CAPEX for recycling NAOH and then consider another significant addition to CAPEX for the shaping and coating circuit. US$500 million wasn't out of the realm of possibility for Albany CAPEX with all those things considered so it would make sense that adjustments were made to accept lower purity in order to reduce NAOH charge drastically , allowing for the recycling circuit to be dropped. Makes total sense to me and correlates well to the chopped resource with modified cut-off that the PEA summary indicated.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next