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 : Sarissa Shareholders -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: niostargazer who wrote (14)	4/11/2015 3:53:37 PM
From: sense	Respond to of 103

1. The $13/kg figure is in today's money and so inflation has already been factored, at least to 2010 when the previous NI was written. Clearly, we would not be having this discussion if that wasn't the case. A technical quibble perhaps... but a point worth making: I disagree with the point it appears you're trying to make... but, that also requires a correction in mine, in relation to the same point. Two issues... First, note, that "Clearly, we would not be having this discussion if that wasn't the case." isn't obviously correct. Of course, it is a fine thing if SRSR does actually prove, in a study that can claim legitimacy in relation to defining the project economics (coming "soon" from RPA?), to have total production costs that appear they will be significantly lower than others. I've long been making that claim... and I think we agree... that SRSR's basic costs "should be" a lot lower than others given what is known of the situation. Whatever the numbers used... the situation at Nemegosenda is one that appears it is clearly advantageous relative to others. It makes sense that mining from the surface in an open pit, with minerals exposed at or near the surface, versus digging tunnels to great depths to reach the mineral... provides obvious cost advantages in mining, along with other advantages that might matter even more. But mining costs are a small component of the total costs. The key in the competition really isn't all and only about delivering some comparable (defined how ?) product at a marginally (or, significantly) lower mining cost... rather than about finding an optimal balance between (larger or lesser) total costs, on the one hand, and (larger or lesser) total value dependent on the quality of the resulting product. It's the spread between cost and value... not the absolute in the cost... that matters most. Value in the finished product(s)... relative to the costs of producing them... is the key. Even if SRSR's basic costs were double those of competitors... but that meant the quality of the resulting product was also far superior... we'd still be having the discussion. I'm pointing out that the cost data has to be paired with reference to some quality benchmarks... to be made relevant in making proper comparisons. If SRSR's costs are $13/kg to produce "bulk" product that is at least comparable to the current "market standard" bulk product... that's fine... but, it is still giving an incomplete picture of the competitive reality, given rapid change occurring on the demand side, in terms of quality. As you slide higher along the product cost/quality curve, both the costs of production and the resulting value of the (assumed) higher purity end products will be higher. The spread between the cost and the value is the point... but, where along that cost/product quality curve is the target... now and in the future... and how does that relate to the curve versus time in the demand growth for higher quality product ? The issues in the market competition will include the ability to slide along that curve depending on changes in demand... without having to reinvent everything ? Second, note, that while we're still waiting for studies capable of providing a proper economic analysis with a level of certainty we can rely on, it isn't at all clear, currently, what it is that the $13/kg figure MEANS... in terms of the basic costs to do what, and to produce what as an end product... at what particular grade or quality. Or, at least... that figure, assuming "industry standard bulk" grade as a target, doesn't necessarily best or properly highlight the potential in the optimal value... that a higher (absolute), but relatively lower cost ( versus competitors) to attain higher value products would enable. The point... is that stand alone cost information perhaps doesn't mean much... if you're not focused on defining the costs in relation to some quality standard in the resulting product... using a longer time horizon in defining competition in the future. Lower costs are obviously a good thing... assuming the comparable quality in competitors products is able to be matched or exceeded... but picking out one spot on the cost/quality curve to highlight, as if it provides a full description of the competition... is an error. I think we're in agreement, given what is known thus far, that SRSR should have some significant cost advantages... in relation to the other new potentials being considered for development. I'd also like to see them address potential competitive advantages OTHER than the basic "bulk grade" in the cost issues.

To: niostargazer who wrote (14)	4/13/2015 8:16:30 PM
From: sense	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103

Wrote a long post in reply to your items 9 to 15... but accidentally erased it while trying to paste in a link that got clicked instead... so, will skip all that... and, short of time, so not going to reinvent all I'd said... but, the meat of the matter in external content re separations and Lerner's work is contained in his patent history, some early bit of which might also have been based on work done addressing Nemegosenda rocks... 4229386 3311449 3294482 3240557 3235328 3170969 3025157 3025131 3003867 From those, or 4673491, 5824210, etc., you can easily enough search USPTO for other on topic patents by classification and by looking at the patents that reference these, or at others by those authors, etc., to get at the more current information in the more recent patents than those showing Lerner's early work. But, even in the patent work listed here, it appears it is work that was done later than the "Lerner Report" as the patent work tries to address some of its limits and its shortcomings... The Lerner Report is still plenty useful for SRSR at the current stage, mostly as being specific to the rocks we have, it still proves plenty well enough that it's fully possible to mine Nemegosenda ores and produce niobium economically... even by using those early methods. The Report doesn't necessarily provide the optimal solution for today, or the lowest possible cost in processing solutions, for today, or even relative to Lerner's other work... Lerner proceeds, in these early 1960's patents, to address other options mostly, as he says, as the use of organic chemistry is inherently more expensive than using basic inorganic chemistry in addressing the problems... But, of course, then, I'll go back to my point... that the element of the cost in any one single step isn't the primary issue now... rather than it being about the total processing costs, versus the total product value that results... with higher total purity and lower specific impurity risks in the end products being worth more than the extra cost in getting there, particularly if you can do that directly as a part of your planned primary processing scheme, IF you can make that happen... I think we're still a long way, now, from having to address the optimal solutions... but, when you get to the stage where you're doing feasibility studies... or working on proving and improving the options before proceeding to spend money on development... there will be a need for a more focused effort, to enable implementing "better" modern solutions. Basic physical separations tech has improved a lot since the 1950's... and physical is inherently cheaper and safer than chemical... so, some mix in optimization will have to happen... later... The "how not to do it" example most current now... is at Orbite Aluminum... where the project has been delayed in development for two years while they burn money addressing shortcomings and disconnects in the process requirements and equipment... that should have been ironed out before beginning development, instead of it all having to be re-invented on the fly to replace installations that didn't work as expected... And, of course... a history of error in drilling holes in the wrong places repeatedly... doesn't naturally lead to an assumption that there's not any technical risk inherent in having the same people implementing big money plans for development and installation of process technology that they know little about... Hiring better quality experts than before, helps... but doesn't solve the problem without some proofs that the same or similar issues won't somehow turn up, again...

To: niostargazer who wrote (14)	6/28/2015 10:52:10 PM
From: sense	1 Recommendation Recommended By niostargazer Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 103

Addressing yours from another list... Yes, there is gold at Nemegosenda. The only report I have seen published was in one of the original documents from the Gulf Dominon surveys. In that report, they note but are cagey about the potential... They found and reported a grab sample taken from outcrop (I think) with "high values" (and, that's a high value in relation to the 1950's standards... which means ounces per ton then, versus grams per ton today). But, that sample wasn't considered to be relevant in relation to their niobium exploration effort, because it was reported to be found in a carbonate sample... which also had significantly elevated values in REE... but essentially no niobium. With MCP declaring BK last week... with Mountain Pass pretty much looking like toast... we're probably getting closer, more rapidly now, to the point where REE become worth talking about again... I could think of worse things than having REE values contaminated with gold at the ounce per ton level ? LOL! Otherwise, it is a "known" that the structures produced by the regional carbonitites intrusions are gold bearing. REE market competitor Geomega was a spin out from Nio-Gold... who owned the carbonitite properties GeoMega holds now because they checking them for gold. The gold values found in that carbonitite were pretty well characterized, but weren't higher grade values, and they were considered too diffuse to be economic... and, they were also apparently not closely associated with the same rocks as the niobium and REE values... Nemegosenda might be different than those deposits... because of the post-deposition timing of the intrusion of the syenite core... which might have had impact in driving significant hydrothermal activity which might have melted, mobilized and re-deposited pre-existing gold... including even that it could have been the same events as were the driver of the deposition of the Borden Lake deposits ? Don't remember the relationship in the timelines in the sequences they've posited there, right now... But, it seems possible, at least, that the chemistry of the carbonitite rocks at Nemegosenda could have enabled enhanced deposition of gold along the southern boundary of contact between Nemegosenda's high pH rocks and hydrothermal fluids... which wouldn't tend to cause gold deposits to happen there if the gold were already in place there first... but might if the gold that was there already was remobilized and redeposited at the same time the syenite core was intruded ? It's all speculation until you can show more than has been shown about the deposition model that is known to have generated high value gold inside the carbonitite... So, will the gold potential at Nemegosenda... be allocated to Shining Tree... or to Nio-star ?