Hi 2ic, thanks for your pragmatic (and kind) sentiments. I am a cautious optimist, attempting to remain well-grounded, and have no issue believing this stock will settle around a considerably higher number than current, regardless of the prospective news cycle that may trigger pull-backs should anything disparaging turn up in the reality conversion process. Because it is all solvable with good people, which they have. And Tanzania will be BIGGGG, whenever that is finally happening, and that is our backstop.
STA are going to arrive somewhere between "good" and "excellent" at Coburn. It is conceivable they may have to spend a short time in "mediocre", but it is set up so that is more an in-house story as they will see the exact detail of that. They have naff all overburden to remove for an initial period while they come to grips with the operation, and that period will inform what they actually need to do while they are meeting performance targets for external consumption. This is where my 2024 crack comes from, if there are to be chinks it will take that long for them to be visible. Mind you, I directly know of one other newish mine with massive throughput performance issues that are not showing on the balance sheet, and I have no idea how that is happening (don't ask, I'm not telling!). STA performance will be more visible.
Re the process efficiencies I have enough insight to the underlying tech to not be thinking there will be a performance problem here. But it is a big leap, and proving it is achievable is a big deal. Heck, in another unrelated endeavour, we are proposing to do about 10 months of proving that material processed in a particular way will behave in the way we already know it will from full scale site results. Proving your lab stuff in the real world really matters!
If you checked the web link you will know I'll be in Perth in Nov, which I don't really know what to expect, but maybe catch up for a beer?
Given the (very reasonable) fascination with recovery efficiency, I felt this little gem from the 7/01/2010 DFS would be just a tiny bit titillating:
Heavy Mineral Products
At a mining rate of 17.5 million tonnes of ore per year over approximately 23.5 years, the average annual yield of final mineral products with some of their key specifications is shown in Table 3 below. Mineral recovery factors in the WCP and MSP have been applied to the in- ground heavy mineral contents listed in Table 2 to derive the final product quantities. These recovery factors are based on the metallurgical test work discussed above and are heavily influenced by customer quality specifications. With less stringent specifications, product tonnages would increase but prices achieved may be lowered. Table 3. Average Annual Coburn Mineral Production
Product Annual Tonnage Key Specification U + Th (ppm) % of Revenue
Zircon 40,000 66% ZrO2 340 67
Ilmenite 90,000 61% TiO2 114 18
Rutile 9,000 95% TiO2 50 10
Leucoxene 7,000 90% TiO2 150 5
Total 146,000 100.0
(20min delay)