Originally posted by Therookie88
I suspect you are a paid pumper! you have been wrong so many times! 2.5 billion X 1.35 (35 percent increase) is 3.3 billion for starters! and 2 billion\ 1.35 ( 35 percent reduction is 1.5 billion! so that gives it a range of 1.5 billion best case! to 3.3 billion worst case! for someone who is treated like a god on here surely u can do simple maths...
second of all BHP WILL not spend billions on a sub grade mine when they can get a high grade deposit off the ground and running for 1/6th of the price!!!! SURELY you don't believe BHP want KRC!! iron ore is a completely different market to Vanadium!!! LOOK AT CURRENT OPERATORS. they are all greater the 0.8 percent grade!!!!! does that not ring a bell??
THE COST TO SELL 99.5 percent purity is higher! that Is correct but the cost for KRC to get 99.5 percent will be much much higher then a hIgh grade deposit, you dont even know there cost to produce! so how can yoh talk about the value of vanadium!! Its meaningless If you dont know ur margin!! are you guessing??? how did ur capex estimate go!?!
honestly mate you have to be paid by reading your past pumps I dont even know how you have credabilIty anymore
ps you saId constructive critisicm Is welcome
Wrong.
This is a base case with a high margin for error. As you can see the regulators have really cracked down on what can and can't be reported with Scoping Studies.
The announcement explicitly states "
The base case used in the study has demonstrated to KRC that improvements in the business case might be made be reducing capital costs, enhancing project efficiency through various process methods being trialed..."
That being said, taking a base case (not best) capex figure of AUD$1.625b equates to USD$1.25b which I think is a reasonable enough estimate at the scoping study level, with plenty of room for bringing this figure lower.
I think the fact that the figure printed being in AUD spooked a lot of retail and the lack on integrity from posters such as yourself has been very disappointing to read also.
Unfortunately the lack of clarification regarding production rate and pricing assumptions makes things very difficult to assess here, which is what I am most disappointed about. I would have much preferred KRC take a similar approach to other SS's that have been released recently and omitted capex costs altogether (if possible) until published comprehensively in the PFS.
For all we know KRC have been very conservative in other inputs in the V SS. We know an exchange rate of 0.80c was used as a base case in the fluorite SS which was extremely conservative. What pricing was used to determine a 3-6 year payback period? These are important questions but unfortunately we have no answers to them.
What we can reasonably assume is that our production rate is more than double that of our peers, and to reference
@Scarpa post the equivalent capex for TMT and AVL for an equivalent operation is $800m and $900m respectively (in comparison to KRC potential $US1.25b) it is far from the blowout that posters have been expressing.
I think the published capex figure is overcooked, given the tightness of regulations and without further clarifications it is actually very difficult to draw inferences here. Also, some of KRC strongest drawcard are repeatedly overlooked, primarily being in such close proximity to Wyndham Port and being able to utilise existing Argyle infrastructure for power.
We know the **anintha deposits are going to have extensive energy requirements, and are yet to release a clear path to power.
Admittedly it's hard to have a sentiment given the reaction from the market, and as such I've changed mine to none and am awaiting further developments.
(20min delay)