NRZ - NeuRizer Ltd

[dj_420]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

I believe blr should be added to that list of potential in situ leach miners.

sorry sleeper lol we will add in BLR

only showing that the type of mine can have a fundmental difference in the financial viability of a project and hence profits which directly affect sp

 

[champ2003]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

i think you will find some answers will find in a BFS (when eventually released) which will show how expensive an underground mining operation will be.

i have wondered why MTN can command such a low market cap compared to its peers, upon doing quite a lot of research i believe some of this to be priced into the type of mines each different company will eventually operate.

obviously grade is king in everything and is very relevant when comparing mining techniques.

open cut mining is suited for low to high grade material that is close to surface. obviously if there is a large resource that is of low grade it can still be economic to have an open cut mine due to low costs of recovery.

as a resource gets deeper the grade needs to increase also to make it economically viable to recover the commodity. if an underground mine is warranted then the grades also must be substantially higher than what could warrant an open pit mine.

for eg (hypothetical) an open pit uranium mine might be financially viable if there is at least 10 000 tonnes contained uranium at 0.01%

for an underground mining operation it might be financially viable if there is at least 15 000 tonnes at 0.07%

now im not sure of what exact figures make a mine financially viable HOWEVER one must also compare these types of mines.

many people have wondered why AGS has a much larger market cap for a smaller (percentage) resource than MTN.

the type of mine that AGS will have is in situ leach a process by pumping weak acidic liquid down on side of the resource seeping through the uranium deposit and pulled up the other side. the solution is then refined to recover the dissolved uranium.

in situ leach mining is very cost effective takes minimal time to set up and is only limited to how much solution can be pumped through the deposit.

now in MTN ann it is stated that due to environmental issues an underground mine would be used to remove deposit. the underground mining operation will take a lot longer to get in place, operate etc, as well as been far more costly.

a lot of people have also been astounded as to why PDN would go for SMM when MTN have a huge resource, well think about it, PDN have obviously done their research and decided that the SMM resource was more viable to go after.

why would that be??

the type of mine they will use. now halba has also stated that WME grades are to low to even warrant been looked at BUT because of the resource proximity it could eventually be viable for open pit mine. there is in fact a BFS been completed on a mine near WME with avg grades near to 0.01% much lower than what WME has already found (and i will post research on this just have to go dig it up).

so in all obviously the companys that can get a mine up and running the quickest and CHEAPEST will command a higher market cap, hence AGS is at such a large market cap and now CUY is starting to show a lot of interest.

this is purely because the type of mine AGS and CUY (in situ leach) will be cheap and quick to set up.

so IMO it might also be viable when comparing resources and companys etc to consider the type of mine they will need to get up and running, leading to time capital cost etc etc.

Hmmmm and how do you know that PDN won't EVER go after MTN??? After all, you only go for 1 take over at a time.




P.S ISL mines are apparently also problem prone.

 

[Sean K]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

ISL mines are apparently also problem prone.

How's that? Interested to know.

 

[Halba]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

Why all the talk re: ISL? MTN is not an ISL miner - its tank leach processing. At these stage I don't see how underground mine makes it less cost effective as say PNN or AGS, both have costs too. CUY also has jack all resources, I read it doesn't even have a JORC.

 

[Sean K]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

How's that? Interested to know.

Can you post it in the Uranium thread please champ? Cheers.

 

[Sean K]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

why all the talk re: ISL? MTN is not an ISL miner - its tank leach processing. At these stage i don't see how underground mine makes it say less cost effective as say PNN or AGS, both have costs too. CUY also has jack all resources, i read it doesn't even have a JORC.

Sorry Halba, you're saying an underground mine is cheaper than open cut, or ISL? Also, JORC isn't that important by your standards is it? Does BMN, ERN, or ECH have a JORC? Anyway, that's off topic.

As far as the comparison between underground, open cut, or ISL goes, the initial point was that the market cap of MTN may be a bit lower due to the nature of the deposit, which is a fair statement I think. It's just but one of the many factors effecting the various U potentials market cap. It's not just about the in ground resource.

 

[Halba]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

A few dollars per pound difference in costs makes little difference when you are selling yellowcake at $120$ pound +..all will make great profits, therefore the discount is unjustified. Market agrees with my views, hence the rise in MTN and the increased support you saw in the $5 mark

 

[spooly74]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

A few dollars per pound difference in costs makes little difference when you are selling yellowcake at $120$ pound +..all will make great profits, therefore the discount is unjustified. Market agrees with my views, hence the rise in MTN and the increased support you saw in the $5 mark

It will make a difference because it will depend on the type of mining method and the profit forcast for the "life of mine"

Depend on the U price too, what will it be in 15 years

 

[Sean K]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

A few dollars per pound difference in costs makes little difference when you are selling yellowcake at $120$ pound +..all will make great profits, therefore the discount is unjustified. Market agrees with my views, hence the rise in MTN and the increased support you saw in the $5 mark

Might be unjustified Halba, but to what degree, is an open question in my mind.

The $120 + lb price is an interesting one at the moment, and needs to be discussed further I feel. We are all valuing these companies on the spot price, which is fine perhaps for an unhedged producer, or near term producer. However, many of the spec plays at the moment will not be into production for years, if ever. What we should be coming up with is a long term forecast for U to determine is those few lbs will make a difference in the years to come.

Does anyone have a long term price projections of U3O8? I read in an article recently that UBS had it at about $40, so maybe a few lbs will make a difference when it's eventually producing? For discussion I suppose.

Yes, the market will eventually price MTN accordingly. But I don't think we are in a position to really value it at the moment. For a start, how about the BFS, which may indicate a long term U price, or hedging policy?

 

[Halba]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

Re: uranium price predictions, uranium price affect all other stocks equally so doesn't just affect MTN. Still doesn't explain vast valuation difference

My opinion re : uranium. There is simply inadequate supply to meet demand till 2020. Its that simple. Cigar lake really was the major impact, with some smaller impacts like ERA not meeting production targets, and langer heinrich slow ramp up. Unless something else/some other technology comes on e.g. clean coal, uranium is the only go. Also companies have the ability to hedge in 10 year contracts. The current long term uranium price is $85/lb and that will rise.

 

[dj_420]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

Re: uranium price predictions, uranium price affect all other stocks equally so doesn't just affect MTN. Still doesn't explain vast valuation difference

My opinion re : uranium. There is simply inadequate supply to meet demand till 2020. Its that simple. Cigar lake really was the major impact, with some smaller impacts like ERA not meeting production targets, and langer heinrich slow ramp up. Unless something else/some other technology comes on e.g. clean coal, uranium is the only go. Also companies have the ability to hedge in 10 year contracts. The current long term uranium price is $85/lb and that will rise.

halba on this thread you are stating that mine type does not matter as "what is a few dollars per pound difference" YET on WME thread you state that pre-jorc resource is insignificant due to lower grades.

is that not a bit hypocritical???

you do realise that there are a number of low grade deposits coming online soon dont you? i would have thought if the mine type can be completely discounted by your standards then the grade of a deposit does not matter either.

 

[dj_420]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

Sorry Halba, you're saying an underground mine is cheaper than open cut, or ISL? Also, JORC isn't that important by your standards is it? Does BMN, ERN, or ECH have a JORC? Anyway, that's off topic.

As far as the comparison between underground, open cut, or ISL goes, the initial point was that the market cap of MTN may be a bit lower due to the nature of the deposit, which is a fair statement I think. It's just but one of the many factors effecting the various U potentials market cap. It's not just about the in ground resource.

what i was actually discussing halba is that an underground mine is more expensive HENCE needs higher grades and larger deposit to make it financially viable.

WHICH also means a large uranium deposit on surface can have LOWER grades to make it financially viable to mine, but you keep writing off any company with low grades. maybe look at rossing mine perhaps.

i dont see how MTN can be priced exactly the same as SMM when the mine type and HENCE costs are going to be completely different.

one last point is that the mines PDN has actually been going for and have secured over past few years are all open pittable or isl so they are obviously costing in types of mines on a long term scale in these areas

 

[nizar]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

I read an article in the Weekend Australian on Apr 7-8 (i know this is a bit late but I have just read it) and Warwick Grigor was saying that Marathon resources was already in his viewed "Fully Priced". What are poeple's thoughts on this?

Maybe this has already been somented in this thread.

Have a look at the share price of MTN since April 7-8.
Who is right - Mr. Grigor or Mr. Market?
Ill tell you right know ill put my money where the market tells me.

 

[nizar]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

My opinion re : uranium. There is simply inadequate supply to meet demand till 2020. Its that simple. Cigar lake really was the major impact, with some smaller impacts like ERA not meeting production targets, and langer heinrich slow ramp up. Unless something else/some other technology comes on e.g. clean coal, uranium is the only go. Also companies have the ability to hedge in 10 year contracts. The current long term uranium price is $85/lb and that will rise.

Sorry I beg to differ.
Do you know how many uranium mines in Kazakhstan are going into production from 2008-2010? I can tell you its several.
Also olympic dam expansion will start production around 2012-2013.

 

[Halba]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

what i was actually discussing halba is that an underground mine is more expensive HENCE needs higher grades and larger deposit to make it financially viable.

WHICH also means a large uranium deposit on surface can have LOWER grades to make it financially viable to mine, but you keep writing off any company with low grades. maybe look at rossing mine perhaps.

i dont see how MTN can be priced exactly the same as SMM when the mine type and HENCE costs are going to be completely different.

one last point is that the mines PDN has actually been going for and have secured over past few years are all open pittable or isl so they are obviously costing in types of mines on a long term scale in these areas

re: WME doesn't have a JORC yet. I am merely being critical of it achieving 18 million pounds targets as the information contained here pointed to poor exploration results. This is the sole reason why i am skeptical on the marenica uranium project until i see new drill results and new exploration results. I want to see management prove themselves first.

http://www.gsn.gov.na/pdf/uranium.pdf

Scroll to Marenica uranium project

4.2.2.2.6. Marinica

e.g.

"Anomaly 1: Results obtained from this area
were poor, with only a few boreholes
encountering values in excess of 200 g/t U3O8.
Only one hole exceeded 300 g/t."

"Area 2 has the richest mineralisation. Values
exceed 150 g/t U3O8 over a fairly large area and
mineralised zones are wider than 3 m" >> if this is considered rich what about the other areas?

Cheers.

PS: if the mngmt prove to me and the market some good results, obviously i will have to retract my views.

 

[champ2003]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

re: WME doesn't have a JORC yet. I am merely being critical of it achieving 18 million pounds targets as the information contained here pointed to poor exploration results. This is the sole reason why i am skeptical on the marenica uranium project until i see new drill results and new exploration results. I want to see management prove themselves first.

http://www.gsn.gov.na/pdf/uranium.pdf

Scroll to Marenica uranium project

4.2.2.2.6. Marinica

e.g.

"Anomaly 1: Results obtained from this area
were poor, with only a few boreholes
encountering values in excess of 200 g/t U3O8.
Only one hole exceeded 300 g/t."

"Area 2 has the richest mineralisation. Values
exceed 150 g/t U3O8 over a fairly large area and
mineralised zones are wider than 3 m" >> if this is considered rich what about the other areas?

Cheers.

PS: if the mngmt prove to me and the market some good results, obviously i will have to retract my views.

What has WME got to do with MTN??

 

[Go Nuke]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

Why would MTN go into a JV lookiing for Uranium in W.A???

The current W.A premier is against Uranium mining.
Or is it because....times change..and premiers change with the times.

 

[Kimosabi]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

Why would MTN go into a JV lookiing for Uranium in W.A???

The current W.A premier is against Uranium mining.
Or is it because....times change..and premiers change with the times.

Don't worry, Brian Burke has been commissioned to deal with this

 

[deftfear]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

Why would MTN go into a JV lookiing for Uranium in W.A???

The current W.A premier is against Uranium mining.
Or is it because....times change..and premiers change with the times.

Maybe to derisk itself from being a one mine company, most investors see a company with only one mine being riskier than a company with multiple locations. It's obviously looking longterm, they wont be anywhere near thinking about mining there for 2-3 years, and times might have changed by then.

 

[dj_420]

Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

guys just wondering if anyone had seen the relevance of this

However, they won backing for a proposal banning uranium mining in national parks and world heritage areas.

will this have any sort of implication on the mt gee area?


ALP dumps mine policy
Email Print Normal font Large font April 28, 2007 - 8:02PM

Advertisement
AdvertisementKevin Rudd has narrowly managed to convince Labor to cast aside a 25 year policy banning new uranium mines.

After nearly two hours of debate, delegates at the Labor national conference in Sydney today backed their leader's proposal to expand uranium mining but only after an alternate plan to delay the decision was defeated by the narrowest of margins.

The issue - cast as a test of Mr Rudd's leadership and Labor's fitness for government - divided the opposition front bench and sparked a passionate debate on the conference floor.

Deputy Senate leader Stephen Conroy, a member of Mr Rudd's leadership team, voted against the uranium expansion plan, backing the alternative put forward by opposition frontbenchers Anthony Albanese and Peter Garrett.

Senator Conroy later refused to discuss his decision.

Mr Albanese and Mr Garrett had wanted any decision on new mines deferred until stricter safeguards were put in place to deal with nuclear non-proliferation and associated radioactive waste.

Their proposal was defeated by a slim 190 to 205 - a margin much closer than had been anticipated.

However, they won backing for a proposal banning uranium mining in national parks and world heritage areas.

As Labor grappled with its difficult policy dilemma, Prime Minister John Howard flagged the government's intention to remove all unnecessary restrictions on mining, processing and exporting uranium, opening the way for domestic nuclear power generation.

Mr Rudd derided Mr Howard's plan, calling it the "Montgomery Burns solution", referring to the maniacal nuclear reactor boss in the cartoon series The Simpsons.

He told the conference that the change in Labor policy was needed because not all countries were blessed with the energy alternatives enjoyed by Australia.

"The challenge is as we debate this amendment to recognise the reality that around the world there are so many economies who do not have and possess the rich range of energy options which we in this country have at our disposal," Mr Rudd said.

"We have been supplying uranium to them for many years and this amendment seeks to recognise that reality into the years ahead."

But Mr Albanese told delegates that it wasn't a risk worth taking.

"If you're cautious about further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle, vote for my amendment," he said.

"If you think that it's pretty arrogant to suggest that we know what will happen to geology, climate, and importantly, political changes over the next 240,000 years, think there might be a doubt about it - vote for my amendment.

"If you think it actually matters that every person in this room knows that ALP members at the rank-and-file level support my amendment, then vote for it. I think it does matter.

"Let's put out a consistently clear position that says we don't want any further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. Vote for my amendment."

Mr Garrett, who campaigned for nuclear disarmament when he was the frontman of Midnight Oil, promised he still had the anti-nuclear fire in his belly.

"I've long been opposed to uranium mining. I'm unapologetic about it. In fact I'm proud of it," he said.

But rising Labor star and union boss Bill Shorten, who has won preselection for the next election, said that Labor values weren't worth much if the party wasn't in power.

"Not voting for change will undermine us at the next election," he said.

"For me, you can have all the Labor values in the world but they're not much good if you're in opposition. Winning is important to changing all of the issues."

He made it clear the party was risking government if it went against Mr Rudd.

"If you think that rolling the leader is a great idea then go ahead and vote for the Albanese-Garrett amendment," Mr Shorten said.

Mr Albanese later said that he was not disappointed by the result because it was so close.

"I think it's pretty hard to be disappointed with the vote when we were in a minority by only eight votes," he said.

Two protesters were kicked out after they pulled out a flag and began shouting slogans at Mr Rudd as he left the conference floor following the vote.

Earlier in the day, the party endorsed Rudd's new industrial relations policy without debate.

The new policy, which bans strike action without a secret ballot of workers and reinstates unfair dismissal protection for some workers, had been touted as a test of Mr Rudd's leadership.

But union officials agreed not to attempt to amend the policy after several hours of discussion on the edges of the conference.

Labor workplace relations spokeswoman Julia Gillard thanked delegates for their support and paid tribute to her shadow parliamentary secretary Brendan O'Connor for his work in negotiating the agreement.

"This chapter wouldn't be with you today if it wasn't for his hard work," she said.

Under the policy, fathers will be guaranteed the right to take up to 12 months unpaid parental leave as part of a new employment safety net covering all Australian workers.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd and industrial relations spokeswoman Julia Gillard released a policy document titled Forward with Fairness: Labor's Plan for Fairer and more Productive Australian Workplaces, which provided further details on the safety net workers would have under a Labor government.

"A Rudd Labor government will guarantee a safety net of decent, relevant and enforceable minimum wages and conditions for working Australians," the policy says.

It promises 10 legislated national employment standards, which will apply to all workers.

"Labor's new national employment standards will contain entitlements for all employees regardless of their industry or occupation," the policy says.

"These new standards cannot be removed or replaced."

The standards include separate periods of 12 months unpaid parental leave for both parents following the birth of a child.

"Labor recognises that many families want to have a parent provide all or most of the care for a child during the first two years of the child's life," the policy says.

Labor would also guarantee workers eight national public holidays, as well as prescribed state or local public holidays such as Labour Day and Melbourne Cup Day.

The minimum conditions will include mandated redundancy pay for workers in a job for more than a year and minimum periods of notice if they are sacked.

The second phase of the safety net relates to further conditions that can be guaranteed in workers' awards.

"Labor believes that awards are an important safety net and an effective floor for collective bargaining. Collective agreements will be able to override award entitlements provided the agreement means employees are genuinely better off," the policy says.

"Under Labor, awards may build on and also provide industry detail on Labor's legislated minimum standards.

"Labor's new awards may only contain a further 10 minimum employment standards."

These can include standards on minimum wages, overtime and penalty rates, allowances and superannuation.

AAP