>12mmm OS at the DMU screen is overs. As bruce says, either more...

>12mmm OS at the DMU screen is overs. As bruce says, either more time on the screen to breakdown better, or removal from the screen into a new scrubber trommel to break it down further and feed it back in. More time on the screen will reduce DMU throughput without a larger new screen set-up, which may be difficult to fit?

Rarely is crushing the OS a good idea, Usually the undersize produced is coated in cement and contaminants that just upsets off-take processors and you cop a bigger penalty. However, TB is not your typical OS, the blocky stuff is apparently friable into product under moderate washing action, although there will be a component of OS that's simple no good.

I have watched Bruce's last webinar a few times while ruminating on the situation. He is probably correct that the answer is part fix to liberate more under size sand from the OS, part increase the mining rate and DMU ability to feed WCP with nameplate rougher feed. My maths still says they have higher HM in the 75% undersize feed making it to the spirals, which is imo a large part of the extra 10-15% product per tonne of undersize, even though Bruce indicates that the block model is aligned with the resource model? Keeping my HC podwer dry on that front until the Qrtly and see what HM grade vs production figures are supplied...


Very clear there is at least one large seller using a broker to sell down. Every day the ask disappears just before close to nothing below ~42c, then next day it all piles up sometime after open. SFX probably know who it is, maybe even how much they want to sell down, but I can't see the price rising until that seller has 're-balanced' their SFX holdings in light of the issues and elevated risks...

GLTAH