I just had a quick read of their presentation (
https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann-blacksmith-pre-feasibility-study-webinar-presentation.7984392/), they seem like they have a good opportunity.
Please note the comparison below is the RHK Pre-Feasibility Study VS the AKO Scoping Study (
https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann-bekisopa-scoping-study.7696363/), so not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
Things that stand out for me:
- RHK are using $90USD/T for their numbers VS $100USD/T for AKO
- 200m shares @ $0.90c = $180m MC VS 100m shares @ $0.15c = $15m MC for AKO. Thing to note here, the AKO PFS "should" be finished around the end of the year, and a similar market cap would mean about $2.00 per share.
- 178mt resource, of which all appears to be shallow DSO, with potential for a resource upgrade, but how large is to be confirmed. AKO have 196mt resource, with about 8mt of DSO so far, with SIGNIFICANT potential for resource upgrade at what is known for Bekisopa and the EM surveyed part of Satrolaka.
- 5mtpa VS 2mtpa for AKO
- 23 year mine life VS 5 - 7 years initially for AKO (the scoping study had 5 years, but there has been additional drilling in the central and northern zones that will expand the mine life - I estimate about 1.5mt.
- C1 costs of $51/t VS $42/t for AKO
- $217m capital costs VS about $55m for AKO, but I think it will likely be closer to $70m. Let's see, hopefully I have been too conservative.
- 3.3 year pay back @ 5mtpa VS 2.1 year @ 2mtpa for AKO
- $523m USD pre tax NPV on 165mt over 23 years VS $125m USD pre tax NVP on 6mt over 5 years for AKO (SOOOO MUCH upside for AKO)
- 31% pre tax IRR VS 64% for AKO.
- 200,000m drilling over 16 years VS 9,000m over 3 years for AKO.
- hematite/goethite VS Magnetite for AKO with the following product specification for fines average (refer to page 20 in the AKO scoping study):
---- Iron Ore Grade: 60.5% VS 64.6% for AKO
---- SiO2: 4.96% VS 3.5% for AKO (so almost 50% more than AKO)
---- AI2O3: 3.09% VS 2.3% for AKO
---- P: 0.08% VS 0.03% for AKO (so almost 200% more than AKO)
---- S: 0.03% VS 0.02% for AKO (so almost 50% more than AKO)
- No DRI suitable material VS 34mt inferred resource, with a lot more to be proven up.
- about 450kms from the port VS ~360kms for AKO (although it seems like RHK can use much larger trucks that will allow them to road haul 5mtpa, it is yet to be determined how much beyond 2mtpa AKO will be able to expand using road haulage).
- Port access is still under negotiation VS no details on port solution as yet for AKO.
- Strip Ratio is 1.64 VS 0.3 for AKO (so about 550% more than AKO)
- No off take / funding partner VS 2 non binding offers for AKO, with potential for more offers after site visits this month.
Congrats to the owners of RHK, but there is a lot more work to do, they are in probably the best mining friendly jurisdiction in the world, but probably also one of the most competitive, which will mean they will need to negotiate for capacity.
AKO are still waiting for progress on the mining code, and whilst it is slow, it is similar in comparison to what RRL were forced to endure from the NSW government for the McPhillamys project - which was recently approved, but has had an at least 100% increase in CAPEX, and no doubt a big increase in OPEX / AISC.
(20min delay)