With respect I still can’t help believe that the current set...

With respect I still can’t help believe that the current set back appears more serious than it may be :

In saying this I refer to :
COMMERCIALISATIONOFTHEALBIONPROCESS.pdf at

http://www.albionprocess.com/downloads/AltaPaper2012-

Whilst not a light read and takes time, for anyone interested it explains the Albion process in detail by the world wide seller of the process Xstrata.

It demonstrates that it has been used successfully for some time for other metals as well with references to eg zinc mines etc. They also did the test production work for Las Laganus again with references to outcomes.

No expertise, but from this one deduces there is a very fine line in production output between nature of material/mineral content/sludge in, grinding, ultra fine grinding , floatation, oxidisation and required sulphide production and CIL circuit gold and silver extraction, but to name a few of the obvious factors.

It obviously presents many potential variances/combinations of these factors to achieve the maximum required output, and no doubt change one factor, leads to likely having to change several others to tweek toward that maximum production.

It is sometimes easy to forget that PGI is virtually six months or more behind in achieving this due to physical plant failures, and that if it were not for that fact, they may well have already achieved impurity fix and the optimum tweak by now.

Such factors can also include whether acid or limestone is used and in what concentrations, PH acid, alkali, but not neutral, which obviously varies with the nature and constituents of mineral source input etc.

Contains fairly specific references to the design of the Las Laganus refractory gold mine, along with some other mines and a reference (and obviously you can google other’s), to the fact that there are currently other gold mines being set up the same way with the Albion process.

Hence it would still appear to me that it is likely an experimentation tweaking process for each given situation is likely necessary, and that in all likely hood current difficulties will be overcome, else it would seem likely Xstrata would incur considerable liability to the many mines it has sold, is selling, has assisted and is assisting to set up currently.

And then even considering possible changes at this point, eg. changing from limestone to acid, as previously discussed, it would increase the cost per oz.

However as per my previous posts, if costs run at 25% higher than anticipated, it still only brings the cost to around $450 oz, so instead of chasing $25 mil/year they chase $18.7 mil/year, and if you make it make that 30% come to around $500 oz, so then they are chasing $17.5 mil/year etc.

Regardless, it still makes them extremely profitable (using the estimates of around $11 mil in costs/year), and still one of the lowest cost gold/silver producers in the world.

It may just take a little longer to achieve any of these outcomes, and should they fully get near nameplate, it just gets better.

As always do you own research