NRZ - NeuRizer Ltd
- Thread starter Mistermoon
- Start date
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Simply it is not ISL, and heap leach, but want to read more:
Uranium ore is crushed and formed into a slurry. The slurry is pumped into a leaching tank and classified by a sparge tube projecting water at teeter velocity at the bottom of the ore bed. Thereafter, a second ore bed is pumped by the slurry into the tank and the second bed classified. This is repeated until there are four or five ore beds in the tank. Thereafter, the ore is leached by passing liquid up from the bottom of the tank at velocities less than teeter velocities so that the bed remains classified. After leaching, the ore is formed into a slurry and the slurry pumped from the tanks to disposal.
Simply it is not ISL, and heap leach, but want to read more:
Uranium ore is crushed and formed into a slurry. The slurry is pumped into a leaching tank and classified by a sparge tube projecting water at teeter velocity at the bottom of the ore bed. Thereafter, a second ore bed is pumped by the slurry into the tank and the second bed classified. This is repeated until there are four or five ore beds in the tank. Thereafter, the ore is leached by passing liquid up from the bottom of the tank at velocities less than teeter velocities so that the bed remains classified. After leaching, the ore is formed into a slurry and the slurry pumped from the tanks to disposal.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,018
- Reactions
- 11,006
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
It sounds a lot environmentally friendlier than ISL... good... I'm 90% sure MTN will mine at Mt Gee now
It sounds a lot environmentally friendlier than ISL... good... I'm 90% sure MTN will mine at Mt Gee now
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Well, MTN is still at EV$3.3/lb. With possible increasing resources, and anticipated positive scope study, and in a favorable state, it seems still a long way to go to catch peers valuation, which is at EV $10/lb. Maybe by the time it gets there, uranium stocks are valued at $20/lb. Who knows?
At $10/lb MTN worth $11+ assume 22% dilution.
Well, MTN is still at EV$3.3/lb. With possible increasing resources, and anticipated positive scope study, and in a favorable state, it seems still a long way to go to catch peers valuation, which is at EV $10/lb. Maybe by the time it gets there, uranium stocks are valued at $20/lb. Who knows?
At $10/lb MTN worth $11+ assume 22% dilution.
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Originally Posted by mmmmining
"Simply it is not ISL, and heap leach, but want to read more:
Uranium ore is crushed and formed into a slurry...." etc.
insider responded...
"It sounds a lot environmentally friendlier than ISL... good... I'm 90% sure MTN will mine at Mt Gee now"
__________________
I was musing about the accuracy of the above, so thought I'd shoot a note to an expert on the subject of mining uranium.....Glenn Catchpole is not only an expert, but imo THE expert on both ISR and U/G.....credited with major discoveries in Kazakhstan and Canada [with Cameco], as well as in Wyoming, where his co., Uranerz, is less than 3 yrs. away from production, Glenn has over 40yrs. in the biz....
__________________
From: David xxxx
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:01 PM
To: Glenn Catchpole
Subject: shareholder Q
Mr. Catchpole,
I saw a comment on a discussion board which I believe was in error.... "It sounds a lot environmentally friendlier than ISL... good..."
could you please comment on the comparative impact on the environment of ISL/ISR mining vs. underground conventional mining....I've been of the opinion that the URZ way is not only more enviro friendly, but also much less costly....
thanx for your time....David aka siempre..
RE: shareholder Q
From: Glenn Catchpole (gcatchpole@uranerz.com)
Sent: Fri 4/06/07 1:23 PM
To: David xxxx
Like a lot of mining related questions, the answers are not always that straight forward. In the case of your question… is ISR mining more environmentally friendly and less costly than conventional underground (U/G) mining…. the answer is not just a simple yes or no. The overall impact and disturbances during mining are less for ISR than U/G since a U/G mine requires a conventional mill including crushing and grinding circuits plus a state of the art tailings disposal facility is necessary. For an ISR mine the issue is the impact to the water quality in the aquifer where the uranium is located. In both the U/G and ISR, situation the technology exists to reclaim and decommission the facilities in accordance with the regulations and the law. On a total cost basis, it costs less to reclaim the ISR mine but not necessary on a unit cost basis (cost per pound of uranium produced).
In regards to comparing the costs of production between the two methods, the capital cost and monthly cash cost for and ISR mine are typically considerably less than for an U/G mine but the important numbers are what are the comparison between the two methods in terms of amortized unit capital costs and the operations unit costs. In other words, you need to put things on a cost per pound of uranium produced. For example, the capital cost and the total monthly operating cash cost for a U/G mine may be 10 times the respective costs for an ISR mine, but when you put it on a unit cost basis, a U/G mine in the Athabasca Basin of Canada sitting over a high grade deposit will most likely have unit costs (capital and operating) less than a good ISR mine. As in every kind of mining, ore grade is king and size is queen. That being said, the attraction of an ISR mining project for a small company (like Uranerz) is that it takes much less capital to get into production and a shorter time frame. Also, it should be kept in mind that the ISR mining method only works on certain types of uranium deposits, with very specific features (such as good hydrogeologic parameters). The ISR mining method does not work in the Athabasca Basin. To further illustrate, in Wyoming when the uranium bust came in the early 1980s, all the conventional uranium mines and some of the ISR mines in Wyoming had to shut down for economic reasons. A couple of the ISR mines (both located in the Powder River Basin) managed to stay in operation during the bust period. The reason the conventional mines had to shut down was due to the relatively low grade uranium deposits in Wyoming. However, the high grade deposits in the Athabasca Basin continued to be profitably mined by conventional mining methods during this same bust period.
Hope this explanation was not too confusing. To emphasize what I think are important points, it typically is less expensive in total cash to license and construct an ISR mine compared to an U/G mine, and it can take significantly less time. These factors, coupled with the experience of our management team with ISR mining in Wyoming, accounts for our decision relative to our business model.
Sincerely,
Glenn Catchpole, President & CEO
Uranerz Energy Corporation
gcatchpole@uranerz.com
Originally Posted by mmmmining
"Simply it is not ISL, and heap leach, but want to read more:
Uranium ore is crushed and formed into a slurry...." etc.
insider responded...
"It sounds a lot environmentally friendlier than ISL... good... I'm 90% sure MTN will mine at Mt Gee now"
__________________
I was musing about the accuracy of the above, so thought I'd shoot a note to an expert on the subject of mining uranium.....Glenn Catchpole is not only an expert, but imo THE expert on both ISR and U/G.....credited with major discoveries in Kazakhstan and Canada [with Cameco], as well as in Wyoming, where his co., Uranerz, is less than 3 yrs. away from production, Glenn has over 40yrs. in the biz....
__________________
From: David xxxx
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:01 PM
To: Glenn Catchpole
Subject: shareholder Q
Mr. Catchpole,
I saw a comment on a discussion board which I believe was in error.... "It sounds a lot environmentally friendlier than ISL... good..."
could you please comment on the comparative impact on the environment of ISL/ISR mining vs. underground conventional mining....I've been of the opinion that the URZ way is not only more enviro friendly, but also much less costly....
thanx for your time....David aka siempre..
RE: shareholder Q
From: Glenn Catchpole (gcatchpole@uranerz.com)
Sent: Fri 4/06/07 1:23 PM
To: David xxxx
Like a lot of mining related questions, the answers are not always that straight forward. In the case of your question… is ISR mining more environmentally friendly and less costly than conventional underground (U/G) mining…. the answer is not just a simple yes or no. The overall impact and disturbances during mining are less for ISR than U/G since a U/G mine requires a conventional mill including crushing and grinding circuits plus a state of the art tailings disposal facility is necessary. For an ISR mine the issue is the impact to the water quality in the aquifer where the uranium is located. In both the U/G and ISR, situation the technology exists to reclaim and decommission the facilities in accordance with the regulations and the law. On a total cost basis, it costs less to reclaim the ISR mine but not necessary on a unit cost basis (cost per pound of uranium produced).
In regards to comparing the costs of production between the two methods, the capital cost and monthly cash cost for and ISR mine are typically considerably less than for an U/G mine but the important numbers are what are the comparison between the two methods in terms of amortized unit capital costs and the operations unit costs. In other words, you need to put things on a cost per pound of uranium produced. For example, the capital cost and the total monthly operating cash cost for a U/G mine may be 10 times the respective costs for an ISR mine, but when you put it on a unit cost basis, a U/G mine in the Athabasca Basin of Canada sitting over a high grade deposit will most likely have unit costs (capital and operating) less than a good ISR mine. As in every kind of mining, ore grade is king and size is queen. That being said, the attraction of an ISR mining project for a small company (like Uranerz) is that it takes much less capital to get into production and a shorter time frame. Also, it should be kept in mind that the ISR mining method only works on certain types of uranium deposits, with very specific features (such as good hydrogeologic parameters). The ISR mining method does not work in the Athabasca Basin. To further illustrate, in Wyoming when the uranium bust came in the early 1980s, all the conventional uranium mines and some of the ISR mines in Wyoming had to shut down for economic reasons. A couple of the ISR mines (both located in the Powder River Basin) managed to stay in operation during the bust period. The reason the conventional mines had to shut down was due to the relatively low grade uranium deposits in Wyoming. However, the high grade deposits in the Athabasca Basin continued to be profitably mined by conventional mining methods during this same bust period.
Hope this explanation was not too confusing. To emphasize what I think are important points, it typically is less expensive in total cash to license and construct an ISR mine compared to an U/G mine, and it can take significantly less time. These factors, coupled with the experience of our management team with ISR mining in Wyoming, accounts for our decision relative to our business model.
Sincerely,
Glenn Catchpole, President & CEO
Uranerz Energy Corporation
gcatchpole@uranerz.com
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
siempre33, the letter looks very familiar to me. I have seen it somewhere. I kind of believe Glenn or whoever just borrowed it from some publication.
Anyway what he said, or you quote on costs is right. But it does not prove what I said and Insider said are wrong. But we only talk about Environment Impact Here.
About cost, please read my previous posting.
ISL is not applicable because it is not right type of ore. Even it is applicable, the impact is devastating because it is in a mountain range.
Based on my limited mining knowledge, contained tank leaching definitely has less impact on environment. This is what the experts from Coffey's conclusion. I guess we rather believe Coffey than Glenn, me, insider or you. Because none of us has been working on it with first hand knowledge.
Don't try to do expert's job, it is impossible, and wasting time. The best we can do is to interpret their findings, cross-reference, and verify them.
siempre33, the letter looks very familiar to me. I have seen it somewhere. I kind of believe Glenn or whoever just borrowed it from some publication.
Anyway what he said, or you quote on costs is right. But it does not prove what I said and Insider said are wrong. But we only talk about Environment Impact Here.
About cost, please read my previous posting.
ISL is not applicable because it is not right type of ore. Even it is applicable, the impact is devastating because it is in a mountain range.
Based on my limited mining knowledge, contained tank leaching definitely has less impact on environment. This is what the experts from Coffey's conclusion. I guess we rather believe Coffey than Glenn, me, insider or you. Because none of us has been working on it with first hand knowledge.
Don't try to do expert's job, it is impossible, and wasting time. The best we can do is to interpret their findings, cross-reference, and verify them.
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
MTN could reach $5 today. It is the only a few choices for new players who can jump on uranium train very cheaply. The timing of US$113 coincident with Easter holiday will spread a lot of greed amount punters. When they wake up, MTN is still well within reach. How lucky they are!
I stick my neck out... Please be gentle....
MTN could reach $5 today. It is the only a few choices for new players who can jump on uranium train very cheaply. The timing of US$113 coincident with Easter holiday will spread a lot of greed amount punters. When they wake up, MTN is still well within reach. How lucky they are!
I stick my neck out... Please be gentle....
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,018
- Reactions
- 11,006
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
$5 is a bit much guys.
Looks to be opening up only slightly higher. Predicting a 10%+ jump?? I suppose uranium has gone up 10%. Is that your thinking?
$5 is a bit much guys.
Looks to be opening up only slightly higher. Predicting a 10%+ jump?? I suppose uranium has gone up 10%. Is that your thinking?
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
It is a complicated analysis, based on greedy and fear. Let's see towards the end of the day. I hope I am wrong, just sometimes I have to make some daring production to generate some interests. Such as I predict US$110/lb.
Not ramping, because I believe $10+ SP for MTN. $5 is only half way.
$5 is a bit much guys.
Looks to be opening up only slightly higher. Predicting a 10%+ jump?? I suppose uranium has gone up 10%. Is that your thinking?
It is a complicated analysis, based on greedy and fear. Let's see towards the end of the day. I hope I am wrong, just sometimes I have to make some daring production to generate some interests. Such as I predict US$110/lb.
Not ramping, because I believe $10+ SP for MTN. $5 is only half way.
Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,018
- Reactions
- 11,006
- Joined
- 7 October 2006
- Posts
- 877
- Reactions
- 0
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources
Kennas, give me this one, would you, it is $4.99 man!Well, with only 4 sellers it's gunna get there!