avb vs sfr

I have read the comparisons made between SFR and AVB [the last couple of weeks] and i must point out that these are very two different deposit characterisations. This means that one will not be able to give an accurate assumption of AVB's prospects. In my opinion, AVB's is actually looking better and i think most astute investors already know this but are waiting for confirmation. Let me explain...

SFR has got a VMS deposit in its coffers. This means that their mineralisation tends to form in clusters of lenses and are not usually large but are typically high grade stuff. When these two traits combine, a VMS cluster of lenses can make for a highly economic concentration of metals [usually base metals with substantial gold and silver credits] - Like SFR. But on its own, i would not bet on any single lens of VMS-type material making a mine.

What one usually looks for in VMS;

1. Cluster of lens - In early stages, we should be able to see the lenses in geohysical and geochemical [soil] anomalies..should have multiple targets.

2. Grade - The base metals should run at least 1 percent or they are probably not worth bothering with. 2 to 5 percent copper and/or zinc is more normal...double digits are exceptional.

3. Geological model - VMS lenses tend to be thicker than the average vein and relatively easier to follow with a drill. They do get faulted off, bent, broken up and even inverted by tectonic activity. However, with careful study the local geo structures, project operators should be able to form a model of whats going on in the rock and predict where to drill.

4. The lenses, even in a big cluster, will never add up, to the tonnage of a big porphyry - but they tend to be higher grade and carry more precious metals, so the economics of mining them are often excellent. Because they have a smaller footprint [like SFR's deposit], they dont need the huge, multi-billion dollar capital involved with major earth moving operations. Because they are richer, the time until payback can be a lot shorter. But one usually needs several of these lenses to make a mine worth building.

5. Only drawback - the deposits are usually polymetallic [consisting numerous metals], making the processing of the ore more complex and expensive.

As such, SFR's operation is completely different from AVB's. AVB's deposit is more towards an IOCG style mineralisation. It is practically at surface [low stripping ratio] and as such the use of cheap bulk processing techniques are the order of the day. Close to surface is always ideal...if you have a hundred metres or more of waste over your ore, you are going to spend a lot of money moving plain dirt around.

AVB management is now looking for consistency in its drill intersections. This relates to the above 'internal waste' [barren zones] within a deposit and can have a negative impact on project economics. At the moment, they are achieving a good consistency but this will be backed up with the recent assays..

Infrastructure for AVB - All infrastructure build is close and on standby. No problems here.

Main kicker not looked at by investors in AVB - VALE's partnership

Most majors have acquisition teams with sophisticated valuation models and very good data on the real costs of building and running various kinds of mines. To keep in mind is that most of the projects being advanced by juniors were once explored by the majors - they have, in most cases, intimate knowledge not only of the geology but the local politics, water and power supply and many other variables that can support a deposit's economics.

AVB is just starting to show itself in its projects...investors who do their due diligence and keep to within their risk horizons will be rewarded.