I believe blr should be added to that list of potential in situ leach miners.
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.
How's that? Interested to know.ISL mines are apparently also problem prone.
Can you post it in the Uranium thread please champ? Cheers.How's that? Interested to know.
Sorry Halba, you're saying an underground mine is cheaper than open cut, or ISL?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.
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.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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?