Ann: ABx Group Launches SPP on Same Terms as Capital Raising, page-26

Acknowledging your post back to me on the other thread, to which i agree i should have explicitly stated that I'd omitted their aspirations for in-situ leaching given the inherent environmental study/complications in doing so. (It's just my opinion that it will be a large hurdle to leap - but absolute credit to them if they managed to get approval)

For implicit balance and to agree with yourself; Just because it needs approvals that is to of course not say in-situ leaching is not possible/feasible, it just means that;

a) lixiviant needs to generally needs to be benign. Usually resulting in lower recoveries - however if a large portion is ionic then diluted sodium chloride/ammonia sulphate can be used.

and/or
b) Underlying geology needs to support the process. Essentially the less 'permeability' into groundwater/aquifers the better.

some good articles below to the in-situ operations in SA referenced by ABX.

http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/files/4771310_isl_review.pdf
https://www.wise-uranium.org/upaussa.html

"For ISL to be an applicable technology, the orebody needs to be permeable to the liquids used, and should be located so that these liquids do not contaminate groundwater away from the orebody. The general term for a rock or sediment layer saturated with water, and through which water may easily pass, is an aquifer. An orebody may occupy only part of its hosting aquifer.

Uranium deposits suitable for ISL occur in permeable sand or sandstones, preferably confined above and below by impermeable layers (called aquitards), and which are below the water table. There are two established operating regimes for ISL mining of uranium, determined by the geology, groundwater and environmental requirements.

In general, if there is significant carbonate in the orebody (typically as limestone), alkaline (carbonate) leaching is more effective. Otherwise, as with the two South Australian examples, acid leaching is more efficient. Other considerations, particularly environmental aspects, must also be taken into account (details in later sections). "

In this instance the underlying geology for ABX may lend itself better to in-situ leaching (presumably why the path was floated).

here's the honeymoon feasibility which opted for a dilute sulphuric acid in-situ leach.
https://www.sedar.com/CheckCode.do;jsessionid=0000FlAeMEUt5EdiJskBAz3sQXr:188setvlh

more here;
https://www.wise-uranium.org/umopaus.html#SAAISLASS

Just for transparency I call things as I see it. Naturally if the project stacks up enough for me to invest I'm bullish on it. But the comment I downplay other stocks because I hold one is not accurate.

The below is a bunch of rare earth stocks I've commented on recently. The only one I held at times of posting was AR3. (ironically, the one with the lease positive reception).



Finally, I'm just an individual like everyone else making best assessments on current info. It doesn't matter how many followers I have or how many likes I get. It doesn't mean my opinion should be held in any higher regard.

ABX has a good management team and do seem to have the ESG aspect of the projects at the forefront.
They're also not a 1 trick pony. For the MC and recent cash on hand it's not necessarily a bad investment if you assessed on a RvR basis.

In agreement with Maverick the placement being underwritten is quite positive and usually post CR provides a decent platform of support in terms of S/P. Typically investors prefer to buy in after such events with increased security and less risk with cashflow increased.

For context to those concerns by my previously posts;
1/100 stocks goes from exploration to mining. That does not mean that there isn't significant profits to be made in the 99/100 that don't.

Some of my best gains have been on companies that have never wound up with an economical deposit. They simply had a good risk verse reward. ABX like a lot of micro-caps always have opportunity for return and of course if the deposit ends up being commercially viable then the opportunity is huge.

So I'd ask that people misinterpret my opinions on the viability of a project because;
1) they are just my opinion (a best guess)
2) doesn't mean there isn't opportunity for wealth creation

SF2TH