Ann: Excellent Results from Ore Sorter Test Work , page-4

re: Ann: Excellent Results from Ore Sorter Te...
Hi Stumpy,

I?ve been quite unhappy with the amount of information that has come from the company recently as well. This might be due to the transitions between MD?s but this update is not bad so here is my take on the report and some of your questions.

The indicated grade of the mineralised waste stockpile appears to be very good. 0.09% WO3 with an upgrade of 7.7 times when put trough the ore sorter giving a grade of 0.7% WO3 and a mass rejection of 88% and a recovery of 90%.
What this means is that this stockpile has a grade higher than the open pit resources and is very easily ?ore sorted?. The ore sorting process is done so as to reduce the amount of material that you have to process past the primary crush.

If then for arguments sake we take 1000kg of this material which according to the stated head grade contains 0.09% WO3 or 0.9kg of WO3 and process it trough the ore sorter we will get a mass of 120 kg ( as per 88% rejection) which will contain 90 % of the original WO3 or 0.81 kg of WO3.
This mass of rock will then be processed further trough secondary and tertiary grinding flotation and whatever other processes that will be used on the final flow sheets where a small proportion of the WO3 will be lost further (for arguments sake let?s assume a recovery of 90%) and the ore sorted mass of 0.81% WO3 will be reduced to 0.729 kg WO3.

If we take this weight and multiply it by the current value of APT and take of the 20% approximation for the conversion between APT and WO3 concentrate we get a value / ton for the mineralised waste stockpile of $26.244/ton. Prior to processing the in ground value ton would be $32.4/ton.

Further multiplication of these values by the contained weight yields an IGV of $314.925 and $388.88 million respectively.

Taking the optical ore sorter reject and doing the same calculations we get a value of $14.418 for the processed and $18 for the unprocessed IGV. These values are smaller and appear to still be economical but the margin is smaller than for the mineralised waste.

The ROM on the other hand yields much higher values of $99.44 for the processed and $118.8 for the IGV. This stockpile although small is extremely important to see at this early stage as it offer a view into what the hard rock production will yield once it gets going because after all this is material which has been removed from the pit and had nothing done to it.

Aside from the numbers that I have presented above the statement failed to emphasise the further upside that this stockpile has as a large proportion of it is already crushed to sizes that can be processed as well as upsides such as there being no blast costs, low haul costs and the like.

Putting the numbers aside this is my interpretation of what the company plan is.

1. Get the tailings dam going (This leaves question marks as to the financing of the 4 M needed). We should get an update as to this aspect of the plan late April.

2. Start the construction of a processing plant to process a) the mineralised waste and b) the ROM. Here question marks still remain as to the financing and the viability of the optical ore sorter reject.

3. Whilst the construction of the big processing plant is happening and once production from the mineralised waste starts drill out the resources further (IMO I believe that they will continue to go further to the NE and the N-NW so as to make the pit wider as that way the high grade ore bellow the bottom of the pit will be accessed easily by open pit methods which are much cheaper than underground resulting in the company having to resort to this mining method latter in the mine life.


Well that?s my take on things as to the timing, financing and off taker agreements I have no idea but they seem to have a solid plan going forward along with solid numbers.

Writing this took a bit longer than anticipated hahahahaha.

Hope you like it

Cheers