Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : The Molybdenum Discussion Board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: teevee who wrote (290)	1/19/2005 1:12:44 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3267

Second shift at Henderson? Price of Moly? Well, yes we have calculated that. It is roughly equivalent to a the effect of on the price of lady's underwear of putting a second shift on at Macy's. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! Really? I don't know. I was wondering what the effect will be of usses putting our three shifts of moly production into play at 3 (count 'em) three properties. I think it will be equal to Macy's and Bloomingdale's combined! I stay awake at night wondering if Walmoly will be getting into the act. It's only once or twice a millenium that 1/2 of the world collectively decides to makes one big leap to try to reach the standard of the most powerful and richest nations in less than a generation. The effect on their demand on resources has never been calculated before. PD, the company in question has predicted that Moly prices will stay high for 3 or 4 years. Perhaps it will be longer. EC<:-}

To: teevee who wrote (290)	1/19/2005 2:00:54 AM
From: Taikun	Respond to of 3267

PD is 18% of world supply according to this article from April 04, but Henderson is less than half PD's 2003 moly production was about 52 million pounds, down from prior years as a result of reduced copper mining during the downturn. This year it could approach 60 million pounds. PD's goal for copper is 2.3 billion pounds. azstarnet.com Henderson has been operating at half its 40m pounds per year capacity, so this will add 20m pounds, presumably "Henderson Mine also operated at less than 50% of its 18,000-t/yr (40-million-pound-per-year)" re:2003, this is 9,000 tons, 10,000MT minerals.usgs.gov Demand is about 140,000 MT a year www.321gold.com/editorials/moriarty/moriarty080904.html+moly+demand&hl=en&client=firefox-a in 2003 280 million pounds (approx 140,000 MT) kaiserbottomfish.com So 9000 tons/10,000MT is 7% of world demand. For Moriarty's 140,000 number, I'm not sure if that is projected to 2005. Also, the Chinese may remove supply. Assuming Henderson was 20 million pounds per year and PD as a whole 52 million, then 32 million+40 million=72million production, assuming no decline in production from other mines. If so then the 60 millon pound estimate from the first article is better. IOW, at 140,000MT PD will produce 50% of est 2005 demand. It appears production is growing about 10% p.a., but that is based on production. Demand will be driven by steel production, which may grow 9% in this article, and that would mop up PDs extra supply: He attributed it to global steel output increasing 9 percent in 2004, a shift to higher molybdenum-using stainless alloys away from nickel, Phelps Dodge not producing more moly as demand grew, and the decline of Chinese molybdenum exports. mineweb.net