I think on the other graph like that that we had seen the dip in the middle was not that low, and the final end could go higher than the first hump. From there, it could continue to rise gradually, stay steady, or slowly fall off, depending on the details. It seems the author here wanted to give you a sense of the overall pattern, but with an abundance of caution. And I agree little happens in a one-year interval in mining.
With Sarissa, after our first hump, I believe we will beat that graph for a number of reasons. I think we will come out of the gate as solely or primarily a niobium play (with respect to Nemegosenda only). And perhaps still mainly on the merits of the Hawke and SE Zones. I am not at all certain at what point the story comes out on REEs or other potential economic minerals. I believe they could well be mining those first few zones while still defining the mineralization in other parts of the property, such as under the lake. At some of the suggested production rates, this could easily be a 50-year mine life, and possibly 100 years or more. So I don't think we will be depleting so fast as to experience the decline at the end of the graph. Anything much past 20 or 30 years does not count for much in analyst's valuation models; with the time value of money factored in, it is just not that relevant. And over time, the prices of these commodities will rise, increasing revenues. The one link you provided today says that minerals at least keep up with inflation. And we have Asian growth to keep demand up for years to come. |
