Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

NRZ - NeuRizer Ltd

Jump to new
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

I've asked Belinda about this clause:

"Mining operations should not take place in the Environmental Class A zone unless the deposits are if such paramount importance and their exploitation is in the highest national of state interest that all other environment, heritage or conservation considerations may be overridden"

and asked for an opinion on whether the SA Gov would consider Mt Gee to be of such importance.

Given Ranns position on U mining, I'd say it's a fair chance to get through.
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

kennas said:
OK, direct from Belinda at MTN. This is a great response and very prompt. Got to hand it to them for that!
Click to expand...


Nice work kennas.

Based on what Belinda just said and from what was on the interim scoping study my guess is they are looking around this area (see image)

IMO there was no way they would be allowed build it in the Flinders Ranges.

They will be up for higher transport costs but will save huge money with the proposed location.

Distance looks around 20 km.

I`m waiting for the scoping study to reveal all.
 

Attachments

  • MTN_PROPOSED_PLANT.jpg
    MTN_PROPOSED_PLANT.jpg
    87.3 KB · Views: 163
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

Surprisingly, I found the most important part of the latest quarterly report which doesn't have anything to do with exploration etc, etc, was that they have moved to a larger office in Adelaide.

Having worked for a number of businesses both public and private, I cannot emphasize enough, how good a sign it is when a business moves to a larger premises.

If they are prepared to go through the hassle of moving to a larger office, then they are real serious about progressing the Mount Gee project.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070427/pdf/3124wgt1jmjlx9.pdf
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

Good work People... I hate it when the environmental issue pops up every time... But it seems to be easily crushed...
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

spooly74 said:
Based on what Belinda just said and from what was on the interim scoping study my guess is they are looking around this area (see image)

IMO there was no way they would be allowed build it in the Flinders Ranges.

They will be up for higher transport costs but will save huge money with the proposed location.

Distance looks around 20 km.

I`m waiting for the scoping study to reveal all.
Click to expand...
From that photo I'd agree Spooly, although it's hard to say for sure. Some distance isn't it.

insider said:
Good work People... I hate it when the environmental issue pops up every time... But it seems to be easily crushed...
Click to expand...
I don't think it's been crushed yet Insider.

"Mining operations should not take place in the Environmental Class A zone unless the deposits are if such paramount importance and their exploitation is in the highest national of state interest that all other environment, heritage or conservation considerations may be overridden"
Click to expand...
MTN are going to have to prove that mining is either:

1. Not going to effect the environment significantly, and especially that little yellow footed rat, or whatever, and/or
2. That it is of 'paramount importance to the State'.

Now, given Mike Rann is out there pegging ground himself, he probably would think the royalties/taxes flowing into the State coffers are of 'paramount importance'.

Apparently Mike hasn't visited Mt Gee to this point, but I am sure that he and his environmental minister will be out there assessing it when the scoping study comes in with the method of mining and environmental impact.

Games not over yet it would seem.
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

Kimosabi said:
Surprisingly, I found the most important part of the latest quarterly report which doesn't have anything to do with exploration etc, etc, was that they have moved to a larger office in Adelaide.

Having worked for a number of businesses both public and private, I cannot emphasize enough, how good a sign it is when a business moves to a larger premises.

If they are prepared to go through the hassle of moving to a larger office, then they are real serious about progressing the Mount Gee project.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070427/pdf/3124wgt1jmjlx9.pdf
Click to expand...

i dont know how moving to a larger office would prove the success of an operation. i think the intention is there but there are other factors at play here.
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

additionally there is the environmental impact issue here. the greens took a hit with the 3 mines policy been scrapped but won one round with the fact that no mining can be done on national park, heritage area, ALTHOUGH this is different i think there will still be opposition to the mine given that many other areas in SA can mine and it wont be as significant as if it was just the one mine.

meaning if mt gee was the only signicant uranium deposit in SA it would have a significant impact on the state, HOWEVER as it is not the only deposit there will be less significance. probably splitting hairs but i now see more upside in CUY and AGS with insutu leach and the fact that they are given green light for trial leaching then following successful trials can start mining.

i also think that the whole process to mine will be long enough without environmental issues dragging the whole process out. just my two cents guys.


oh yeah and is the jabiluka deposit heritage area? so that means it will NEVER be mined, is this correct? obviously should be under ERA thread but still interesting
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

dj_420 said:
additionally there is the environmental impact issue here. the greens took a hit with the 3 mines policy been scrapped but won one round with the fact that no mining can be done on national park, heritage area, ALTHOUGH this is different i think there will still be opposition to the mine given that many other areas in SA can mine and it wont be as significant as if it was just the one mine.

meaning if mt gee was the only signicant uranium deposit in SA it would have a significant impact on the state, HOWEVER as it is not the only deposit there will be less significance. probably splitting hairs but i now see more upside in CUY and AGS with insutu leach and the fact that they are given green light for trial leaching then following successful trials can start mining.

i also think that the whole process to mine will be long enough without environmental issues dragging the whole process out. just my two cents guys.

oh yeah and is the jabiluka deposit heritage area? so that means it will NEVER be mined, is this correct? obviously should be under ERA thread but still interesting
Click to expand...
This all does make Mt Gee less certain. IRT Jabiluka, it's a Native Title issue. The local aboriginals won't allow mining at this point, but they are negatiating I believe. There's probably a price tag on it. Having spent 3 years in Darwin I got to understand that 'Sacred Sites' are actually 'Sacred Sources of Beer Money'.
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

kennas said:
This all does make Mt Gee less certain. IRT Jabiluka, it's a Native Title issue. The local aboriginals won't allow mining at this point, but they are negatiating I believe. There's probably a price tag on it. Having spent 3 years in Darwin I got to understand that 'Sacred Sites' are actually 'Sacred Sources of Beer Money'.
Click to expand...

lol sacred beer money. hahaha.

i can understand the jabiluka area as it is a great area of wilderness, WHAT i dont understand is aboriginal entitlements in the middle of the desert, like the pilbarra, what are they going to do with all that red dirt?
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

MTN are systematically reducing the number of obstacles. Have a look at some of the posts from two years ago to find out the lists of stuff that some people came up with to rubbish MTN. There appears to be just one issue left. It looks like MTN and Coffey have found a solution to it and the environmental issues will be addressed. Once they do, the sp will be somewhere higher than where it is at the moment. Right?

I bought some more today at $5.20. The management has not disappointed so far, and there are strong indications, probably the strongest ever, that Paralana will be mined, possibly with the actual mine being somewhere not too far from there. If you do not believe this, you should sell. If you do, you should hold and/or buy. The choice depends on individuals' investment strategies, the amount of research done on MTN and its management, tollerance for risk, etc.
Good luck to holders.
Dratoz
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

Dratoz said:
MTN are systematically reducing the number of obstacles. Have a look at some of the posts from two years ago to find out the lists of stuff that some people came up with to rubbish MTN. There appears to be just one issue left. It looks like MTN and Coffey have found a solution to it and the environmental issues will be addressed. Once they do, the sp will be somewhere higher than where it is at the moment. Right?

I bought some more today at $5.20. The management has not disappointed so far, and there are strong indications, probably the strongest ever, that Paralana will be mined, possibly with the actual mine being somewhere not too far from there. If you do not believe this, you should sell. If you do, you should hold and/or buy. The choice depends on individuals' investment strategies, the amount of research done on MTN and its management, tollerance for risk, etc.
Good luck to holders.
Dratoz
Click to expand...

That all sounds great however if the govornment introduce a ban as mentioned above then it doesn't matter how good the resource is or the management is. As you said, I guess it depends on what level of risk you would like to take however there are other uranium companies out there that have much safer conditions and therefore has much more assurance of the future posibility of becoming a mine.

I think that the extra research that you conducted today was great Kennas however there will always be that dark cloud ovehanging MTN in relation to the substantial environmental and gov't regulatory risks. All the best!

Cheers!

Champ
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

The last few months i have been in and out of MTN and i regard it's resource very highly.
I have been very tempted to pull out of AGS and go into MTN because of it's better valuation but that sanctuary bit has always put me off.
To me sanctuary means sanctuary and i can see many years of court battles going on over this.
The market will valuate SA u stocks on who is most likely to get gov approval quickly and get the uranium to market first while the prices are so high.
I see a huge upside for MTN if it can overcome this hurdle.
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

yes i think they will be substantially higher than what they are today but you also have to look at type of mine they will operate. people went on and on about comparing SMM to MTN and if MTN was the same market cap as SMM they would be $15 per share.

THERE is some crucial reasons why they arent $15 a share

1 - enrivonmental concerns
2 - type of mine

ill just put up a little comparison of mining method to prove my point



http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/rel...ctionFor=646025&searchText=false&showText=all

Westmoreland

On Apr. 17, 2007, Laramide Resources Ltd announced the completion of the scoping study. In the study, the mine is planned as an entirely open cut operation using conventional acid leaching and solvent extraction technology in the process plant. A mining and milling rate of 1.5 million tonnes per year at an average grade of 0.10% U3O8 for average annual production of 3 million pounds of U3O8 [1154 t U] was used in the scoping study. Production costs for a pound of U3O8 average US$ 19.02 for the first 6 years of the mine life, during which time the strip ratio will be 2.3 to 1. From year 7 onwards, the average production costs of U3O8 will increase to US$ 25.17 per pound as the strip ratio increases during the mining of the smaller Junnagunna and Huarabagoo deposits. Life of the mine will be greater than 11 years.



http://www.uranium1.com/index.php?section=uranium projects&page=2

In August, 2006 Uranium One announced the results of the feasibility study conducted by Mayfield Engineering Pty Ltd. and Aker Kvaerner Australia.

Highlights from the feasibility study include:

Indicated mineral resource estimate of 1.2 million tonnes at an average grade of 0.24% containing 6.5 million pounds U3O8
Steady state production level of 880,000 pounds U3O8 per annum, assuming a 70% rate of recovery
Average cash operating costs over the life of the project are expected to be US$14.13 per pound U3O8
Start-up capital costs of US$35.9 million, with an additional US$5.6 million required for working capital



http://ezinearticles.com/?Conventional-Mining-Will-Keep-Uranium-Price-High&id=316788

A research report by Orion Securities in Toronto, which participated in raising money for Forsys, suggested the all-in cost to mine the company’s Valencia project could come in under $25/pound and would have an IIR of 30 percent after tax. Early estimates show the Valencia project might annually produce 2.5 million pounds of U308 over ten years. This was sufficient to interest the fuel broker for a major U.S. utility. Felker said, “We’ve started the process of marketing our uranium after the utility sent a consulting geologist to study the property.” Due diligence was done on site in Namibia. Felker explained his company’s Valencia project was about 30 months away from where Paladin’s Langer Heinrich is today.

He calculated, from studies he was recently involved with, that the operating costs for an underground mining and milling operation would cost about $80 to $120/ton. An average grade of 0.1 percent U3O8 would yield two pounds per ton, but a feed grade averaging 0.2 percent would yield four pounds per ton. Uranium ore yielding four pounds per ton would cost about $25/pound. Miller explained that grades at Green Mountain, which SXR Uranium One is currently investigating for purchase, and his company’s Roca Honda property, should be profitable using the $100/ton benchmark. Both properties have reported economic grades through various studies.



http://ezinearticles.com/?U.S.-Uranium-Mines-Could-Produce-25-Million-Pounds-in-10-Years&id=335587

StockInterview: How large would a uranium deposit have to be to justify the conventional mining method?

David Miller: Near-surface, open-pittable deposits could be as small as a few hundred thousand pounds to be economic if a mill is nearby. To justify a new mill, for example in New Mexico, a critical mass of about 50 million pounds of uranium is needed. Grades can vary greatly. If the deposit is shallow and mined by open pit, with a mill nearby, then grades could be as low as 0.05 percent U3O8. With a 1500 to 2000-foot underground mine, grades above 0.20 percent may be required.








from these articles and research we get the following:

westmoreland -
open pit resource at 0.10% and strip ratio of 2.3 to 1 = US $19.02

honeymoon -
in situ leach resource at 0.24% = US $14.13



it was also stated in one of the articles that for an underground uranium mine grading 4 pounds per tonne or 0.2% would costs an average of $25 per pound. now the average of MTN uranium deposit is 0.068% indicating to me that since the head feed percentage of uranium is much lower the costs would be higher.

another point is made that an underground uranium mine would be feasible at grades above 0.2% much higher than mt gee.

even say on an avg of 0.1% we can assume the costs would be much higher than 0.2%.


so i am not writing the company off merely pointing out different costs in different types of mines. and mt gee may be quite more expensive per pound than everyone thinks. hence the difference in SMM and MTN, the valhulla resource should be open pittable i believe making it much cheaper per pound basis.

so typically for an underground mine you want high grade resource to be financially viable. the grade at mt gee is comparable to a mine that can be viable from insutu leach not underground mining. IMO its like comparing apples with oranges, there are completely different factors in each type.

and for me much less risk lies in a company that can produce low cost in situ leach type mine. and might i add much quicker to set up also.
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

Top post dj.
Puts a whole new perspective on this deposit than what i had before.

Jesus this 100 letter thing is bugging me trying to make up the numbers with dribble like this last sentence.:mad:
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

DJ,
Yes, your last was quite an informative post. I like this type much more than those where misinformed people repeat over and over again that MTN is in the middle of a national park. This is why one of the points I was making in my last post was that those who do not believe MTN will mine should sell. I now want to add that those should also stop posting their misinformed and repetitious notes that do not add any value, but only waste people's time reading this stuff.

It is fair for those who consider that MTN will mine to be posting the kind of posts as your last, with an assessment of the risks associated with the company's value. That's fair and much different from people posting, well... garbage, over and over again.

Your post provides some indication of how much it costs to get this stuff out of the ground, and it added some further data to my data-base. Thanks for this. ISL is a cheaper way of extracting this stuff (if such is allowed, as it is not free of environmental concerns, either), but one of MTN announcements stated that grades in excess of 0.04% (if I remember correctly) would be economical. When we talk about economies of scale, MTN has to be ahead of many other U explorers and potential miners. Paralana appears to be sitting on a big U resource, and the scope of the upside is yet to be determined. Just focusing on the confirmed quantities and the economical cut off of 0.04%, which was calculated by Coffey when U price was $80-90 and not today's $113, there has to be some value there! I think this value may actually be significant. We should not have to wait long to find out. The final Coffey's report is due within a couple months.

Cheers and I am looking forward to more factual and informative posts :) ,
Dratoz
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

Currently the mkt cap of mtn 'prices in' a lot of those risks. If it was $1bn mkt cap then fair enough it would be very RISKY. but risk is relative to the price. At the current price people are only concentrating on the resources/quality/size, not on the next part which will be covered in scoping/ BFS etc. As the latter parts scoping/BFS/permitting are slowly ticked off the share price will almost certainly rise.

Re: grade. one has to also look at the thicknesses/widths of the orebody as well. these are as /more important than grade. Borschoff says the world needs large tonnage mines. MTN is a large tonnage mine with over 50million tonnes of mineralisation. It is the 3rd largest deposit in australia and one of the largest deposits of its type (hard rock) in the world. Most of the drill results so far have averaged well over the 600ppm odd average grade, so will be upgraded. The thicknesses of the orebody are also quite good.

So far so good for MTN. I await the full report. Its better to get the facts from the company than speculate ourselves, best to concentrate on whats 'in the price' and thats resources only.
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

One thing I don't think I have read yet is would buttermere have made a takeover offer for the company if they didn't think they could eventually mine at Mt Gee? You would think that they would have done a fair bit of due diligence, although this could be debateable seeing that they have no clue when it comes to making takeover offer.
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

News out....talbot increases its stake in mtn....to 10m shares..or 19.9% of the company...is this significant...only time will tell..
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

Punter said:
News out....talbot increases its stake in mtn....to 10m shares..or 19.9% of the company...is this significant...only time will tell..
Click to expand...
That is a significant slice for CITIC/THG to take, and would seem to be more than just an investment, or even blocking stake for any takeover. These guys aren't in the business of takeovers are they? They are just 'investors'. Any idea?
 
Re: MTN - Marathon Resources

kennas said:
That is a significant slice for CITIC/THG to take, and would seem to be more than just an investment, or even blocking stake for any takeover. These guys aren't in the business of takeovers are they? They are just 'investors'. Any idea?
Click to expand...

I don't know if you guys noticed, but CITIC and THG have a entered into an MOU and THG has now become an associate of CITIC and another announcement has just come out that CITIC now has a 19.9% stake in MTN
 
Top