Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

EPM eclipse metals limited.

7.14%

1.5¢

Is this resource under water?, page-2

First 2 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Chopsthecat

986 Posts.

360

13/06/21

12:05

Post #: 53818949
Share

Originally posted by nro: ↑

Ive promised that I will do my best to offer what I understand may be some concerns and benefits with the operation to other posters in the last few days who asked me to as many know.

I spotted the below post from Jeffereies which suggested my findings so far may well have merit. I cant be sure. I dont claim to be an expert. But its spurred a lot of questions for me that there appears to be no answers for I can find.

Post #: 53817721
"I am hoping EPM succeeds, but I think it needs a skeptical eye.Search the words
That report shows that after the cryolite ran out in 1987, three other mining companies did field research at the mine that EPM is now proposing to buy. They walked away. There are many reasons why a mining company might walk away - including lack of funds needed to go ahead. But one reason could be that they decided further mining was not feasible or profitable. After all, the remaining cryolite and the quartz are deep down, as the report shows."

What I spotted was this. Its the physicality of the mine.
Here is the photo of the pit from the companies report.

https://www.eclipsemetals.com.au/projects/ivittuut-project/
Looks good so far even though contamination of the sea may be a threat.
But then I saw this.
Here is a photo more often found on Google. This one from a tourist site who seems to focus more upon the open pit lake.

http://arctic-hunting-group.com/galleri-ivittuut-en.htm
You can surely see my first concern already.
Pits can often form water retention bodies. But this one is far more concerning to me not only due to size but extreeme sea proximately.

Whats even more concerning is how it matches sea level so identically

The pit appears 60m in depth. Then the resource commences and goes a considerable way further down. The width of the pit suggests many hundreds of thousands of liters of water all coming potentially from the sea not meters away.
The sea further wraps around this very deep pit so there is holding back on all sides. The mine was dug some rough 60 years ago (roughly I think). Will this wall still adhere to the far more safety conscious practices of today?
More so you can see further back there are water catchment areas where the water fails to seep away. So is the surrounding terrain further channeling down into this point before going out to sea or is that sea level throughout the soil? They would all appear to match.

Greenland I believe do have seasonal changes and the ice melts and falls. Seepage would be offered too surely.
Would this mean the mine would need to operate in the cold season and not in the warm as the fjords fill and spill and the ice melts etc
Youd want to be working in the warm season surely as the arctic cold can cause difficulties with mining equipment. But perhaps these roles would be reversed.

Is there an intention to dredge such a huge body of water continuously to access 60m under seas level plus?
Will that thin strip of land hold back the sea during mining? Id assume its held so far. But how deep can a mine there afford to go? It doesnt appear to allow much more width expansion to open up the cut of the mine. The opposing bank to the sea looks much higher and sheer faced too. Id suspect the open cut days would be over. But again Im no professional. This is just a glaring hazard to me my research fails to offer much to get around this beyond shaft mining. Which youd guess could be very dangerous here for obvious reason.

Can the mine go another forty to a few hundred meters under sea level? Wall collapses and project delays from such a catastrophe would surely constitute a major risk to the operation if it could be conducted even with marine mining techniques. Even then how can you mine radioactive thorium underwater. I can only assume its impossible unless technically driven. But yet the environmental risks must be huge in a country that isnt open to it. Bad time to be buying operations that risk environmental worries and Im sure youd know about this if you have been watching the political scene in Greenland. Id think it better to be a seller of such projects rather than a buyer after the political and populous uproar over Greenland Minerals even when they have supplied their projects application completed with and done to the worlds best practices and passed by the regulatory authorities after 7-8 hard years of thorough Environmental Impact Application (EIA) processing. If that operation took this long. How long would this one?

I can only assume a huge dredging operation would need to be involved.
Everyone knows the nightmare of mining alongside the sea.
Will this create an extreeme hazard for employees to work within?
Will blasting of quartz have devastating potential if that wall breaks?
Does that wall already leach and hence why water is there? It only looks as thin as a road and then theres a deep sea beyond. Can you see my concern?

Is EPM intending on using costly deep water mining equipment to access what appears to be just quartz. The second most abundant mineral in the world. Surely not. But if that wall is seeping then what other way would there be?

Will the Greenlandic authorities ever allow it in a clearly environmentally conscious country who picket against such potential worries as we have recently seen for GGG?

All these questions come to mind. All to me appear to either be costly or dangerous or both. Certainly all of it will be a major headache and may cause considerable delay potential even if such worries can be reduced surely. Working in a slurry surely wont bode well for mining equipment. Its a major concern for operators as you can imagine.

Maybe this is why the interested miners mentioned in Jefferies report saw the former owners report for sale and apparently walked away
Maybe this why why the seller who I believe operates another mine in Greenland turned his back on this one.
If the report was intended to assist with sale. It looks like this project may have been on the market for around a decade now. Maybe more. Isnt this as long or near on to how long the owner owned it? Im not sure but maybe other posters can help.
Would anyone know if this is accurate and why no one has shown interest for this long.
If not, and I havent seen it so far.

I just feel from thinking this through its fraught with difficulties and concerns. But again. This is all just my opinion based on my research do far.

But what I cant find is where this major concern has been announced to market and why when asking the former owner or the spokesman about potential concerns with the mine several times on HC....was there nothing mentioned about all this and the questions met with silience?

I really hope I have this wrong or it could change everything for me in pursuing an investment ....much like these other miners who have apparently walked away from this particular opportunity if whats been said is true. As its a bit of a worry and could be a catastrophic headache if things went wrong.

I hope not to upset anyone here. Just thought if I had already bought into this it would surely be something Id prefer to know. I hope you can see the justification in my worry too.

Does EPM

Expand

I worried about this too but history was my friend...

Why the water? The answer is location, location, location... AKA the Arctic. It's bloody cold and it snows.

The Winter freeze and snow fall caused the old timers no end of pain with an open pit subject to ground freeze and large quantities of snow filling it. To combat the freeze and snow in the pit the old timers flooded the pit over winter. Come spring they would pump it out again. From reports I found it took around 20 days worth of pumping. Goes to show how much snow and ice was down there over winter to accept 20 days worth of pumping each spring.

Alas water is not the foe, rather friend and prevents ground freeze and snow build up over winter. With better pumping systems these days you could expect to decrease the pumping out days substantially.

my opinion based on my research, do your own as I might be wrong.

EPM Price at posting: 2.6¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
8 Upvote

3 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

Thursday's HotCopper trends: Paradigm's drug IP buy, MTM placement | June 26

BPH

Australia’s gas crisis is here – and dying coal plants aren’t helping

Listen: HotCopper Wire Podcast 015 – Yeah, we're thinking the IPO market is back

ASX Market Close: Index creeps lower as half-year mark approaches | June 26

'Not possible' to port renewable gas: ACCC takes AGN to court

There are more pages in this discussion • 305 more messages in this thread...

First 2 Last

Add to My Watchlist

What is My Watchlist?

A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.

(20min delay)
Last 1.5¢		Change 0.001(7.14%)		Mkt cap ! $44.98M

Open	High	Low	Value	Volume
1.4¢	1.6¢	1.4¢	$117.4K	7.840M

Buyers (Bids)

No.	Vol.	Price($)
8	2695114	1.4¢

Sellers (Offers)

Price($)	Vol.	No.
1.5¢	265728	2

View Market Depth

No.	Vol.	Price($)
8	2695114	0.014
12	3042308	0.013
15	8345908	0.012
5	3330000	0.011
7	1081098	0.010

Price($)	Vol.	No.
0.015	265728	2
0.016	4214676	10
0.017	3720916	4
0.018	2728632	3
0.019	916593	4

Last trade - 16.18pm 26/06/2025 (20 minute delay)

EPM (ASX) Chart

SPONSORED BY