BMN - Bannerman Energy

[Sean K]

Something else: I am not sure if the average investor out there realizes the “hidden” potential of Gonanikontes, as mentioned in the quarterly:

“One important and newly recognised feature of the mineralisation is that it occurs in both alaskites AND the host metasediments. The Rössing Uranium Mine to the north of Goanikontes produces up to 40% of its uranium from mineralisation in these sediments. GARC065 is the first significant intercept of uranium mineralisation to be found in these sediments at Anomaly ‘A’ and further expands the potential of the area.”

Hartley's report says further on this:

"We understand that Bannerman has not assayed all potentially mineralised sediments. The previously announced Resource only contains alaskite mineralisation. This sediment hosted mineralisation was highlighted in the recently announced intersection approximately 800m to the south of the Resource in drill hole GARC065."

What makes Goanikontes so great is that the uranium is in the alakite AS WELL as surrounding metasediments (just like Rossing), and have not yet been assayed!!!! = MASSIVE potential tonnage, high economies of scale!!!

The comment from the above quarterly mentioned the similarities to Rossing!!

This mention by Hartley's is the first time I have heard any further comment on this MASSIVELY SIGNIFICANT feature of Goanikontes!!

If this is broadspread it could lead to a much larger deposit than even they are targeting!!

cheers

This has been mentioned in the thread previously and people should be aware of it. I agree this is potentially very significant, but it's also important not to overemphasize at this time either.

The company did note that GARC065 was the first significant intercept of sediment hosted uranium.

GARC065 is the first significant intercept of uranium mineralisation to be found in these sediments at Anomaly ‘A’ and further expands the potential of the area.

So, it does no way mean that the bulk of the metasediments between all the alaskites across the entire deposit hosts significant uranium. I certainly hope it does, but that is to be confirmed, and to what degree. Could be a great surprise to the upside if they've found it in other assays.

If it does turn out to add up to 40% more to the tonnage, like Rossing, then yes, incredibly significant. The company didn't make note of this in their 27 Jul presentation which is odd if it is that significant. Or did I miss it in there?

Hopefully we get an update on this is the scoping study.

 

[Sean K]

Just another comment:

Some here feel that BMN have "delayed" the BFS to increase the resource before years end ... the belief being that the currently defined resource is uneconomical.

The current defined resource is uneconomical. It's 27m lbs and requires significant infrastructure to get up. What is economical is yet to be determined which should occur in the BFS.

I think this comment about any feeling that a BFS has been 'delayed' has been taken out of context. Saying that a BFS has been 'delayed' is a bit odd in correct context. The usual process is scoping study, PFS, BFS, and maybe one last definitive FS to establishing infrastructure/development. You must have a final resource before BFS commences and this is due end of the year, but I wouldn't expect it on time with all the activity going on.

 

[Sean K]

With Goanikontes, once the orebody is exposed, they just mine away!

Kariba, You've made some great points but I feel you are underestimating the ore to be removed from Anomaly A to get to the U hosted alaskites, and possibly the metasediments hosting some U. Once the ore body is exposed it is not going to be a simple matter of 'mine away!'

The alaskites look to be angled at about 45 degrees, down to 350m, (see diagrams below) which means there is going to be massive overburdon to the top of the lower alaskite, over a 2.3km strike. In addition, if the material between the alaskites is not leached, and is waste, then there is going to be a more significant requirement for removing the waste to get to the ore. The distance between the alaskites is somewhere between 20-50+ m. Over 2.3km x 350m this is a huge amount of work to get to what is relatively low grade ore by world standards. In addition, to dig an open pit mine down to 350m you don't just go straight down, of course. There needs to be access and decline so the walls stay sound. Assume the strike is 2300x350x300 that is going to be a massive pit. A massive amount of ore is going to have to be removed to get to the U. Of course, if the metasediments contain significant uranium this will be of great benefit.

Having said that, with potentially 150m + lbs U sitting there, it's going to be economical IMO, but by how much may depend on the POU over the next 20 years. Long term prices will be what?? No one knows for sure.

So, there's more to just digging this stuff up like it's sitting in the ground like a block of cheese.



(holding )

 

[Sean K]

Another thing; a rollfront deposit that has grades of 650ppm (ala Paladin) and is 20 metres underground SOUNDS better .... Well WRONG!!!! False economy!!! Most such deposits would have 3m to 10m wide orebodies, with the exceptional intercepts getting to 20 to 25m. To get a seriously big deposit, the ore body would have to spread over at least a 6km² plus area. Try calculating how much OVERBURDEN they would have to remove to get to the ore!! 6km² x 20m ... NOW we are talking about high cost!!!

With Goanikontes, once the orebody is exposed, they just mine away!

I agree that comparing AA to LH is like comparing apples to oranges, but I can not see why you would assume a deposit like LH is less economical than AA. It's important to get the detail of LH correct in regard to overburden comparison, and economics associated.

LH occurs over a 15km length in seperate pods, with mineralisation 1m to 30m thick and is 50m to 1,100m wide, depending on the width of the palaeo-valley. The deposit is blanketed by up to 8m of river sands. The overburden here is hardly what BMN face to get to the lower alaskites at AA. 350m....

 

[Sean K]

According to FP - who are notoriously conservative - Goanikonties Anomaly A is a "World Class" deposit! Wait until the rest of them report to their clients.:

cheers

I've been a member of FP for a couple of years and I have got better tips from YT. :


kariba, thanks for your posts, they have been very informative and allowed us to discuss this company in detail. My comments above are probably full of holes and I expect people to disect them, and question them, which I will be very happy with. You seem to have a much better understanding of this company than me and I look forward to your further input so we all may benefit! Cheers, kennas

Go BMN!!!

 

[Sean K]

Chart wise, you could probably put this in the potential breakout thread. Although it's been here a few times the past few months.

Cracking $2.25 was very important as it's breaking the last low, but making a higher high throug $2.50 will be more bullish. Note that if the stock reaches somewhere between $2.50-75 it will be making higher highs and cracking 200d ma which is a bullish sign. If trading just on technicals this would be a strong buy signal, but I'm not sure if I can really say that can I. I would anticipate that if the sp does get to the top green circle, the MACD will be approaching the signal line to give further suport to a longer term breakout and 'buy' signal. Not particularly happy with volume coming off on the way back up...RSI cracking the 50 line and on the up is very positive through. Once these resistance lines are broken we can start considering BMN making a long term trend line other than down.

Having said that, the market is stalling at 6200, which is a concern to me for short term trading and entering stocks for the first time. If we fail here, the chart may indicate an XAO 5 wave down which will take everything else with it. Perhaps the charts will say the same thing. ie, if the XAO breaks up, then BMN will have the positive lead to break up as well.

Scoping study may put a spanner in the works one way or the other.

Cheers.

 

[nizar]

Kennas i really cant believe you've turned into a "believer"
Thats so tragic
You used to be the one putting some common sense into this board.
LOL

I hope this stock goes to the moon coz theres just too many believers, too many...

 

[Sean K]

Kennas i really cant believe you've turned into a "believer"
Thats so tragic
You used to be the one putting some common sense into this board.
LOL

I hope this stock goes to the moon coz theres just too many believers, too many...

Ha ha. I've liked this from the start, and bought and sold it many times over the past year. The 'negative' vibes might be because I have been trying to get some decent analysis out of people instead of just 'toot toot, back up the truck!!', blah blah BS, which has been an unfortunate consistency throughout.

Do you think I'm sounding too bullish?

Sorry.....

he, he.

Toot toot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[noirua]

BMN are suffering as most Uranium miners are at the moment. A Uranium mine takes about 5 years to get into production and that has to be a big concern for a company developing a mine, especially with the Uranium price tanking at the moment.
Hopefully good news from the States yesterday, if it can be believed, looks for a sustained recovery in the second half.
If I was holding BMN, which I'm not yet, I would not be tempted to sell at todays price.
I saw an article at "III" that was very bullish from October on, as so much cash is building up with institutions that will find its way to markets soon. That's what they think anyway.

 

[DAZT49]

This is an updated (10 mins ago) chart of the one I posted a couple of days ago (post 2280)
I noted that the breakout of $2.35 was important.
We got the breakout, but with a gap opening.
See my post 2289 about gaps.(it is very risky to trade on a gap, I wouldnt)
That gap has now been filled. Hopefully the upward movement will now continue as we dont have a confirmation of a trend yet.

 

[kariba]

The current defined resource is uneconomical. It's 27m lbs and requires significant infrastructure to get up. What is economical is yet to be determined which should occur in the BFS.

I think this comment about any feeling that a BFS has been 'delayed' has been taken out of context. Saying that a BFS has been 'delayed' is a bit odd in correct context....

Kennas

"The current defined resource is uneconomical" ... This is debateable, but nevertheless moot! The initial JORC, as stated by the the company, was quickly put out purely so that the rest of the process of S/study & F/study could be facilitated. If we all wait until full JORC & then BFS we will not be paying these prices!! Risk reward ratio.

This was the statement in question.
DoctorJ:“This is why BMN are drilling for more and looking 280m down for there ore that is returning grades lower than PDN's cut off grade back in 2005”
“That's obviously why they've not moved to a BFS yet and are instead hoping to extend the resource.”

IMO thats just purely erroneous and needed a reply

cheers

 

[kariba]

I agree that comparing AA to LH is like comparing apples to oranges, but I can not see why you would assume a deposit like LH is less economical than AA. It's important to get the detail of LH correct in regard to overburden comparison, and economics associated.

LH occurs over a 15km length in seperate pods, with mineralisation 1m to 30m thick and is 50m to 1,100m wide, depending on the width of the palaeo-valley. The deposit is blanketed by up to 8m of river sands. The overburden here is hardly what BMN face to get to the lower alaskites at AA. 350m....

Kennas

I have no problems with your moderate, or cautious view. However, the proof is not "just in the pudding" as they say, it is in the eating! While I am a fan of PDN’s accomplishments in general; FACT: they have REAL problems at LH!!! Have a look at exactly HOW MUCH uranium they are producing over what they forecast, and the cost, time, & difficulty they are going through to achieve it - All on public record! The jury is well & truly out on LH. Whereas the low-grade bulk tonnage Rossing continues to be profitable, even at locked in lower contract sales. You guys are all hung up on the grade & are forgetting the ore involved. Uraninite vs Carbonate Carnotite

Then as regards the, actual mining, using your figures, PDN are digging areas up to 1.1 km WIDE over areas up to 15 km LONG, and they too need a WIDER pit for decline and access to the ore, and probably multiple pits around mineralised zones. AND when they get down there, the ore is in some places only a few metres thick! So, they move on & keep doing that for what? up to 15klm!!! How much tonnage is that!!

Of course we know it’s not going to be a run in the park at G, just as no mine ever is, and just as LH is not proving to be so. But we are talking about a "park" at Goanikontes that is worth $15 BILLION.

cheers

 

[kariba]

I feel you are underestimating the ore to be removed from Anomaly A ... it is not going to be a simple matter of 'mine away!'

The alaskites look to be angled at about 45 degrees, down to 350m, (see diagrams below) which means there is going to be massive overburdon ... In addition, if the material between the alaskites is not leached, and is waste, then there is going to be a more significant requirement for removing the waste to get to the ore. ... this is a huge amount of work to get to what is relatively low grade ore by world standards. In addition, to dig an open pit mine down to 350m you don't just go straight down, of course. There needs to be access and decline so the walls stay sound. Assume the strike is 2300x350x300 that is going to be a massive pit.

A massive amount of ore is going to have to be removed to get to the U. So, there's more to just digging this stuff up like it's sitting in the ground like a block of cheese.

Kennas

Firstly: Was I over-simplifying the work involved in Goanikontes? .... Of course it was! But I did so for the reasons of clarity, because I feel and you and others are over-complicating Goanikontes & oversimplifying what is going down at LH. (we keep comparing them ... we shouldnt!!)

Secondly: Lets get to the overburden:
You seem aware that two types of waste material are generated at all mining operations: waste rock and overburden from the mine. “Overburden” by definition describes material that lies above the ore body. As you will see, in the case of Goanikontes there will initially be very little overburden removal to expose the ore body and begin mining. Once ore stripping has commenced, waste removal too is initially comparatively minor. Essentially the open pit at Goanikontes will be done in stages. In the first stage open pit, there will be virtually ZERO overburden, and minimal waste rock in context. BMN have 27 million lbs in 1500m x 80m … what will we have at 2250m x 80 (and getting bigger)?? … I come up with an easy 50 million lbs in the TOP 80 metres in Anomaly A alone. As they eventually mine out the first stage they will need to then enlarge the pit to go deeper …. But let’s get this all into perspective: We are talking YEARS away!!! I personally doubt they will need to go looking to go below 80 metres this side of 15-20 years of mining. Then what will the price of U3O8 be worth? Who cares!! I doubt any of us will even own a share, or that BMN will still be around … It will be taken over long before then IMO.

However to engage the issue, what happens when they need to go deeper? Assuming the price of U has kept up (we assume it will) - In the end it comes down to STRIP RATIO. You can bandy words around like massive overburden etc. …. But in the case of Goanikontes that is not so! Why? Because ultimately, it is all about economies of scale. Goanikontes will be a BULK mining project! Every informed pundit in the industry is banking on the next word-class U-development being a “bulk-tonnage” low grade mine. So here is a Pop Quiz: Which is better?
1] An 8m ore body under 8m overburden …OR
2] A 160m ore body under 160m overburden
The answer is NEITHER. They are both equal, both have a strip ratio of 1:1 … (this is very good by the way) To mine 100 million tonnes of ore, both will end up having to remove 100 million tones of waste!

At Goanikontes, once the top 80 metres is mined, They will then do their sums, redesign the pit, and start again. This time they effectively WILL have significant side waste to remove for the decline, & then overburden to remove to get to the next layer. But once reached, they will be bulk-mining the second ore layer, with recent drilling showing interepts between 40m - 120m .. Grading HIGHER at depth!!

Speak to any mining manager and ask him which is preferable; a] ore that spread all over the place (like LH at over 15km strike) or b] a bulk mining project concentrated in ONE block going vertical ... answer: "No contest … b] wins!"

In the case above, I have used ad hoc figures from LH & from Goanikontes…. Many of BMN’s drills are coming up with those sorts of numbers, however, the waste strip ration will end up averaging much better than 1:1 IMO.

cheers

 

[kariba]

Attached Pic

Finally:

The diagram you are using there is not complete and is probably misleading you a tad – It needs to be viewed in context!. … ie: It was used in the presentation JUST a part-diagram used to show the correlation between historic grades & current depth extension drilling. It fails to show the mineralization further East!! I have included some illustrations to help get a better perspective

Summing up:
1] Goanikontes will initially have minimal waste with a MUCH better strip ratio than PDN, and IMO with the full pit, will end up with a similar ratio – All to be confirmed by the scoping study of course!
2] Their bulk-mining capability will add economies of scale, further reducing costs
3] Processing the Unaninite out of alskites at G. will be much easier, cheaper, & faster than leaching the high carbonite carnotite at LH. ….. PDN might be able to process half as much as BMN … But, what’s the difference if it costs five times as much in solution, & takes three times as long to leach!! This is not just my opinion, it is information freely available over the net.
Remember these three keys:
• Economies of scale
• Bulk-mining
• Unaninite as opposted to carbonite carnotite

Finally, forget the 350m open pit … that will be the BIGGER picture …In the meantime focus on the $5 billion $$ worth of uranium sitting in the TOP 80m at Goanikontes Anomaly A ALONE! That alone is worth multiples of the current SP!!

cheers

 

[insider]

I have to put my two cents in about mining... It is easier to mine in dry areas, Why? well one reason is retaining walls... The soil holds up better than if it was moist. I don't think they're going to have nearly as much trouble as some think... my

 

[Sean K]

kariba, thanks for your time in responding to these points. I think overall we both agree that this is a great deposit that will be economical, but neither of us know by how much. It seems there's just some relatively minor detail we're disagreeing with which may be just about our choice of phase and vernacular. I always tend to take a more conservative view of things, which is just my style, as many would know on this forum.

Kennas

"The current defined resource is uneconomical" ... This is debateable, but nevertheless moot!

cheers

I agree, I just raised it as a fact that seemed to be debated.

Kennas

I have no problems with your moderate, or cautious view. However, the proof is not "just in the pudding" as they say, it is in the eating! While I am a fan of PDN’s accomplishments in general; FACT: they have REAL problems at LH!!! ....The jury is well & truly out on LH. ....
cheers

I agree, I wouldn't compare these two deposits as I have said, but it was raised.

Kennas

Firstly: Was I over-simplifying the work involved in Goanikontes? .... Of course it was! But I did so for the reasons of clarity, because I feel and you and others are over-complicating Goanikontes & oversimplifying what is going down at LH.

I disagree. Oversimplify, or overanalyse, what's worse? The answer may be somewhere in the middle.

Secondly: Lets get to the overburden:
....In the first stage open pit, there will be virtually ZERO overburden, and minimal waste rock in context. BMN have 27 million lbs in 1500m x 80m … what will we have at 2250m x 80 (and getting bigger)?? … ....I personally doubt they will need to go looking to go below 80 metres this side of 15-20 years of mining. Then what will the price of U3O8 be worth? Who cares!! I doubt any of us will even own a share, or that BMN will still be around … It will be taken over long before then IMO.

However to engage the issue, what happens when they need to go deeper? Assuming the price of U has kept up (we assume it will) - In the end it comes down to STRIP RATIO. You can bandy words around like massive overburden etc. …. But in the case of Goanikontes that is not so! Why? Because ultimately, it is all about economies of scale. Goanikontes will be a BULK mining project! Every informed pundit in the industry is banking on the next word-class U-development being a “bulk-tonnage” low grade mine. So here is a Pop Quiz: Which is better?
1] An 8m ore body under 8m overburden …OR
2] A 160m ore body under 160m overburden
The answer is NEITHER. They are both equal, both have a strip ratio of 1:1 … (this is very good by the way) To mine 100 million tonnes of ore, both will end up having to remove 100 million tones of waste!

At Goanikontes, once the top 80 metres is mined, They will then do their sums, redesign the pit, and start again. This time they effectively WILL have significant side waste to remove for the decline, & then overburden to remove to get to the next layer. But once reached, they will be bulk-mining the second ore layer, with recent drilling showing interepts between 40m - 120m .. Grading HIGHER at depth!!

cheers

A few things here for consideration:

I agree, the intital mining will of course be digging straight into the deposit at the top with no overburden. However, there is a question of grades at this level and the walls of the pit will still not be verticle. BMN have actually provded a pit model in their presentations, but I'm not sure if it's based on AA, or not. See below. Might have to ask the company, but if it is, it looks to have sloping sides to me. Perhaps this is the 'longer term' model you have described after the initial few meters.

I think you're glossing over the ore between the alaskites to be removed. The stacked alaskites do seem to go down on a 45 degree ish angle and have significant space between them. This will have to be removed. Happy to be corrected here.

You think that they won't go under 80m within 15-20 years? I'm not too sure about this and it's probably not a good argument to get over the issues of digging up the lower part of the deposit which seems to be wider and at better grades. Perhaps the fact Rossing have been going for 30 years is some sort of guide but I don't undertand their deposit that well to make a direct comparison. ie, depths, widths, plant operations, etc.

Thanks for that addition view of the layers of alaskites. This does show that they will be processing quite a bit of ore at the top but there are some gaps in the alaskites to be considered there. About 30m between? Determining the gaps between the following layers at depth (looks to be 6 or 7) would mean going through all the drill results in detail.... I think we could assume between 20-50m. Quite a lot over 2.3km to 350m, surely.

I agree strip ratio is important, but I thought we weren't comparing LH and AA any more. Since you've brought it up though, the 1:1 strip is incorrect for LH I think. It's 1-30m thick under 8m, so I could only assume ave 15m under 8m is about 1:2 ish. That could be way off though. But again, I agree moot in this case.


Overall, I agree with your points about the initial stages of mining but I'm not sure if your assumption about not going lower than 80m in the next 15-20 years is sound, nor the amount of overburden.

Hopefully they have a pit design concept in the scoping study so we can both be proven wrong. LOL


Once again thanks for your points, I'm sure I'm learning something out of this. Cheers! kennas

 

[kariba]

However, there is a question of grades at this level and the walls of the pit will still not be verticle.

I think you're glossing over the ore between the alaskites to be removed. The stacked alaskites do seem to go down on a 45 degree ish angle and have significant space between them. This will have to be removed. ...About 30m between? Determining the gaps between the following layers at depth (looks to be 6 or 7) would mean going through all the drill results in detail

You think that they won't go under 80m within 15-20 years? Perhaps the fact Rossing have been going for 30 years is some sort of guide but I don't undertand their deposit that well to make a direct comparison. ie, depths, widths, plant operations, etc.

Overall, I agree with your points about the initial stages of mining but I'm not sure if your assumption about not going lower than 80m in the next 15-20 years is sound, nor the amount of overburden.

Kennas

Just a quick one ... more maybe later!

1] "a question of grades" ...walls of the pit will still not be vertical" It goes without saying that ANY mining pit even a shallower one needs graded inclines. As to the question on grades ... Look you guys are hung up on that. IMO its a non-issue. Rossing has grades of 300ppm dug from a 320m pit & sold at US$25 p/lb and is economical!.... Man, get over the grades! The top portion of Goanikontes is WAY economical at 250ppm, mined from surface, & sold at US90 p/lb

2] "15-20 years?" They currently have 50 million tonnes of ore for 27mil lbs @ 1.4klm x 80m ... Drills have extended it wider & longer to 2.3klm .. So IMO 80 million tonnes of ore for 50m lbs is reasonable.

Rio (Rossing) in all their glory, currently (2006) mine 12mil tones ore p/a, for 8mill lbs p/a ... No way in the WORLD will BMN get near that! But lets assume for BMN a conservative, but VERY respectable initial 2.8mil lbs p/a, which means mining 5mill tonnes ore p/a. That will take them 16 years to work through (16x5mil = 80mil). A strong probability exists that they will keep extending the surface pit further South around the Dome, extending mining by a few years.

3] You guys are also hung up on this "overburden/waste" issue! So lets compare it with Rossing shall we?

In 2006 Rossing mined 12 million tonnes or ore ... very interestingly, they also report they mined 16.8 million tonnes of WASTE ore!!! Yes, they have a strip ratio of 1.35:1 ..... IMO that is HIGHER than BMN will have, but certainly BMN wont be worse. One thing that tells you is that Rossing is not one solid clump, but has significant waste between and around the ore …Goanikontes is a smaller Rossing clone. Yes, Rossing has 300ppm vs 250ppm, but the ore gets richer going deeper & BMN will have higher U prices to sell into!

Truly, mate you are going to have to get over this mindset!!

Thats all for now

Cheers

 

[Sean K]

Kennas

Just a quick one ... more maybe later!

...............

Truly, mate you are going to have to get over this mindset!!

Thats all for now

Cheers

Thanks kariba, all good points. But you won't get me out of a midset that forces me to not take things at face value and to analyse projects that I am investing money in. Hopefully others don't just jump on any bandwagon without as many facts as possible also. Perhaps with the information presented here members have a better understanding of the project and can make a more informed decision. Cheers.

PS, all this has really done for me is confirm that AA, on it's own, on the balance of probabilities, is a company maker. What we have to look forward to is further exploration at Goanikontes which could produce further economic deposits.

 

[kariba]

But you won't get me out of a midset that forces me to not take things at face value and to analyse projects that I am investing money in.

Hi Kennas

You are dead right .. that’s not my intention, and I hope everyone questions their investment decisions thoroughly ... I certainly did in the case of BMN hence my research & understanding of the project.

Additionally, everyone needs to remember the reality: That is, that all investments, especially developing resource stocks, are very high risk. Bannerman is NO exception. If not a project related risk, then from risks pertaining to external market sources, as we have seen over recent weeks & months.

I have over recent months began to concentrate on only the "best" stocks out there; either in project, potential, management, and/or value. BMN is one of a handful I am following and as you can see, very confident in. I have the luxury of having a high risk tolerance, and view the risk:reward ration on BMN as outstanding!

I hope the info I have posted assists any who were unclear on certain matters pertaining to Goanikontes. From there on, please do your own further research, evaluate you OWN risk profile & tolerance, and invest accordingly

In the meantime, I enjoyed the reparte:bigun2:



Regards & all the best

 

[captjohn]

Karibas &(kennas)

Thanx guys for you opinions on the finer points of an "economical mine".

To borrow $500 million to build a mine & then need an open check book for a year or two for operating expenses is an awesome proposal.....

so they (bmn ) have to be spot on with whats there & how to get it out & sold for top dollar! The BFS will evaluate this in due course next year!


In between time We want that scoping study for starters to see what is proposed.

Then & only then can we determine what can be produced from a mine .

personally ,I don't have the experience to work it all out........thats why I really appreciate Karibas & kennas discussing the potential of the bmn resources.

I dread the thought that RIO would try to 'takeover' bmn....it would be like kidnapping my grandchild.....Grrrrr!! I want to see a mine built & producing within 3 years -ish !!
Thanx again Kariba for your very informative analysis .......captjohn