| | | Yes I try to be realistic. Though my run down does not include all cost? Royalties?
But when you read back over the Oct 29 NR and read "The base case economic assumptions which had first been under assessment for the Miller Project have required numerous adjustments over time". What are they referring to? Think about the composite material testing and the results. That was 99.9995% vs 99.9998 pilot operation so is that homogenous? They go on to say " The 38 kg of material was crushed and homogenized at SGS. The calculated head grade obtained from these low-grade flotation trials was 0.53% graphite. As the post-purification results of the disseminated graphite were similar to those obtained from the pilot plant flotation material with a calculated head grade of 7.63%, the Company is confident that thermal upgrading can yield ultra-high purity graphite over a variety of potential head grade scenarios.
They continue with "Detailed chemical analysis of the flotation tailings, composed entirely of crushed marble, has demonstrated that the tailings have calcium, iron, silica, and aluminum levels suitable as feedstock for cement manufacturers. The Miller marble contains low levels of magnesium, which makes it well-suited for certain specific value-added products distributed by the two international cement companies now in discussions with the Company." What is this saying? Tailings pond at Miller or not? I don't know but it might be related to the required numerous adjustments from above?
Now why do environmental and social assessments? "required when the Company proceeds with an application to Quebec's Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources for a Mining Permit." So I can only guess they have more material and mine life than an extraction permit would allow. The marble is quarry, so don't believe this piece is referring to the marble. They are having a site remediation plan, based on their environmental surveys prepared! It is all in the NR's if you take the time to decrypt them.
The enviro stuff could be concerning in that it may cause a delay in graphite start up? Not sure how that will plan out. But, in engineering, things are often pushed in the timeline for the greater good. The impatient flippers might not like this. Though the marble side can still proceed and fund the other. Funds not likely to be short when no dilution is necessary to get it going?
From where I sit, considering what is likely stock piled from old and new trenching, say 6000 tons, the balance for the 43-101 compliant does not need to be very large. This is what the traditional folks will likely not get. But guys like Rocket will. I expect all his plays are not pump and dumps, as you call them. Profit is profit. The timing is what I don't know. But revenue coming in can certainly help fast track the whole project.
I notice many have discounted the ASTM designation but go read that release. Why is a new standard being written? What changed? Well, CCB material was round robin tested for them to define the metrics or compare results of different testing methodologies. Reads to me like It is done. Now when it gets announced probably revolves around the resource definition or start up. Why? Because you can't announce a standard for a material that does not exist, so to speak. But a PEA and viable start up with a timeline to first offs changes that. Now the material is available in low volume but it can now be secured.
I'm loving the potential of this more and more. Time and patience is all that is required now. It is coming. Remember, you are only dealing with a small piece of the property pie. I have a feeling this 93 sq km will be loaded and that west and east is part of one much larger system. That is my speculation for today, lol |
|
