Share
131 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 35
clock Created with Sketch. 05/04/25
14:11
Share
Originally posted by nro:
↑
Overjoyed with 90% loss."Shoutout to $CRML, @TonySage7237 and Malcolm Castle for the most shameful PEA I have seen in my life. Kudos to @Sustainabledud1 for all his commentary. The PEA for Tanbreez outlines a whopping pre tax NPV of US$2.7-3.4B and an IRR of 180%. WTF! CRML and the CP/QP have some gall! Here are a bunch of fun things I noticed whilst flicking through the study 1) Tanbreez only has a S-K 1300 compliant resource, no reserve. Not to matter, Malcolm Castle has created a notional reserve equal to 83.5% of the 45 Mt resource. But what is the point? They go on to create a mine plan that extracts over 150 Mt from the much larger management-referenced 4.7 Bt target resource. 2) The highlighted rows in the mining plan don’t reconcile. How is the duration of Phase 4 over years 14-17 equal to 5 years? How is the duration of Phase 5 equal to 5 years 3) Apparently, no mining losses or dilution factors are required because of the open-pit mining nature. Tough ask given the average 8m thickness of the kakortokite units. 4) The biggest WTF (x 1000) is the processing. CRML report a planned mechanical separation process that has been tested by unnamed independent consultants. They assume a flat 93% recovery in a mechanical process… they also assume 100% payability for a Eudialyte concentrate that is, as @Sustainabledud1 has pointed out, is 3% TREO with a massive silica gel problem. This is mining FRAUD 5) They also very significant sales of feldspar and arfvedsonite. CRML actually assume they can sell the arfvedsonite locally. I imagine they would have more luck selling ice to the Greenland eskimos. 6) To get an operation of 12.5 mtpa up in Greenland, total capex of US$150M is estimated. This is insane . Includes a large port too 7) But given they didn’t bother estimating a shipping cost, maybe they shouldn’t have bothered including a port. Anyway, could've written 100 points here but
Expand
You are an absolute moron. malcolm castle has a impecible record over 45 years and is very well respected by the ASX.
Originally posted by nro:
↑
Overjoyed with 90% loss."Shoutout to $CRML, @TonySage7237 and Malcolm Castle for the most shameful PEA I have seen in my life. Kudos to @Sustainabledud1 for all his commentary. The PEA for Tanbreez outlines a whopping pre tax NPV of US$2.7-3.4B and an IRR of 180%. WTF! CRML and the CP/QP have some gall! Here are a bunch of fun things I noticed whilst flicking through the study 1) Tanbreez only has a S-K 1300 compliant resource, no reserve. Not to matter, Malcolm Castle has created a notional reserve equal to 83.5% of the 45 Mt resource. But what is the point? They go on to create a mine plan that extracts over 150 Mt from the much larger management-referenced 4.7 Bt target resource. 2) The highlighted rows in the mining plan don’t reconcile. How is the duration of Phase 4 over years 14-17 equal to 5 years? How is the duration of Phase 5 equal to 5 years 3) Apparently, no mining losses or dilution factors are required because of the open-pit mining nature. Tough ask given the average 8m thickness of the kakortokite units. 4) The biggest WTF (x 1000) is the processing. CRML report a planned mechanical separation process that has been tested by unnamed independent consultants. They assume a flat 93% recovery in a mechanical process… they also assume 100% payability for a Eudialyte concentrate that is, as @Sustainabledud1 has pointed out, is 3% TREO with a massive silica gel problem. This is mining FRAUD 5) They also very significant sales of feldspar and arfvedsonite. CRML actually assume they can sell the arfvedsonite locally. I imagine they would have more luck selling ice to the Greenland eskimos. 6) To get an operation of 12.5 mtpa up in Greenland, total capex of US$150M is estimated. This is insane . Includes a large port too 7) But given they didn’t bother estimating a shipping cost, maybe they shouldn’t have bothered including a port. Anyway, could've written 100 points here but
Expand
Originally posted by nro:
↑
Overjoyed with 90% loss."Shoutout to $CRML, @TonySage7237 and Malcolm Castle for the most shameful PEA I have seen in my life. Kudos to @Sustainabledud1 for all his commentary. The PEA for Tanbreez outlines a whopping pre tax NPV of US$2.7-3.4B and an IRR of 180%. WTF! CRML and the CP/QP have some gall! Here are a bunch of fun things I noticed whilst flicking through the study 1) Tanbreez only has a S-K 1300 compliant resource, no reserve. Not to matter, Malcolm Castle has created a notional reserve equal to 83.5% of the 45 Mt resource. But what is the point? They go on to create a mine plan that extracts over 150 Mt from the much larger management-referenced 4.7 Bt target resource. 2) The highlighted rows in the mining plan don’t reconcile. How is the duration of Phase 4 over years 14-17 equal to 5 years? How is the duration of Phase 5 equal to 5 years 3) Apparently, no mining losses or dilution factors are required because of the open-pit mining nature. Tough ask given the average 8m thickness of the kakortokite units. 4) The biggest WTF (x 1000) is the processing. CRML report a planned mechanical separation process that has been tested by unnamed independent consultants. They assume a flat 93% recovery in a mechanical process… they also assume 100% payability for a Eudialyte concentrate that is, as @Sustainabledud1 has pointed out, is 3% TREO with a massive silica gel problem. This is mining FRAUD 5) They also very significant sales of feldspar and arfvedsonite. CRML actually assume they can sell the arfvedsonite locally. I imagine they would have more luck selling ice to the Greenland eskimos. 6) To get an operation of 12.5 mtpa up in Greenland, total capex of US$150M is estimated. This is insane . Includes a large port too 7) But given they didn’t bother estimating a shipping cost, maybe they shouldn’t have bothered including a port. Anyway, could've written 100 points here but
Expand
Originally posted by nro:
↑
Overjoyed with 90% loss."Shoutout to $CRML, @TonySage7237 and Malcolm Castle for the most shameful PEA I have seen in my life. Kudos to @Sustainabledud1 for all his commentary. The PEA for Tanbreez outlines a whopping pre tax NPV of US$2.7-3.4B and an IRR of 180%. WTF! CRML and the CP/QP have some gall! Here are a bunch of fun things I noticed whilst flicking through the study 1) Tanbreez only has a S-K 1300 compliant resource, no reserve. Not to matter, Malcolm Castle has created a notional reserve equal to 83.5% of the 45 Mt resource. But what is the point? They go on to create a mine plan that extracts over 150 Mt from the much larger management-referenced 4.7 Bt target resource. 2) The highlighted rows in the mining plan don’t reconcile. How is the duration of Phase 4 over years 14-17 equal to 5 years? How is the duration of Phase 5 equal to 5 years 3) Apparently, no mining losses or dilution factors are required because of the open-pit mining nature. Tough ask given the average 8m thickness of the kakortokite units. 4) The biggest WTF (x 1000) is the processing. CRML report a planned mechanical separation process that has been tested by unnamed independent consultants. They assume a flat 93% recovery in a mechanical process… they also assume 100% payability for a Eudialyte concentrate that is, as @Sustainabledud1 has pointed out, is 3% TREO with a massive silica gel problem. This is mining FRAUD 5) They also very significant sales of feldspar and arfvedsonite. CRML actually assume they can sell the arfvedsonite locally. I imagine they would have more luck selling ice to the Greenland eskimos. 6) To get an operation of 12.5 mtpa up in Greenland, total capex of US$150M is estimated. This is insane . Includes a large port too 7) But given they didn’t bother estimating a shipping cost, maybe they shouldn’t have bothered including a port. Anyway, could've written 100 points here but
Expand
