I disagree with you that the process is unproven, Bloodwynch....

I disagree with you that the process is unproven, Bloodwynch. TIR spent $14M proving the process, in a 2 year field trial:

http://www1.titanresources.com.au/uploads/bioheap_feas_study_72.pdf

That's a lot of money; don't dismiss it out of hand just because it hasn't been used *commercially* yet. New drugs are commercially unproven until released, too - but they have the studies, and trials to prove they are goers, and therefore progress into production. If you had the chance to get into equity in Viagra after the clinical studies and field trials had proven that it worked, but before commercial release, would you do it? I sure would! Similar story to this.

The upshot of TIR's field trial was that the bacterial leaching of low-grade disseminated nickel suplhides was proven to work; it just wasn't greatly economic *at the time*. If TIR had done those field trials in 2003-2005, instead of 2000-2002, then they would be in operation right now, instead of FXR. FXR is effectively in the position TIR would be at if those trials were done in the last couple of years. TIR shareholders must be spewing, since their management got rid of these assets for only about $1M! The only real difference since the field trials is the economic side of it: the somewhat increased operational costs, and the greatly increased revenue thanks to the metal prices.

Bacterial leaching is common throughout the mining industry. The only issue was whether it would work for low-grade nickel sulphides. TIR's $14M field trials show that it does work, and the next obvious question is do the economics stack up. In 2002, they didn't, but my analysis at http://tinyurl.com/9l9d8 shows that in 2005, the numbers certainly do stack up.

Oh, and my costs were ($2+$1.77)/lb = $3.77/lb at Radio Hill. Sholl was $2.77/lb, only because it gets to use the Radio Hill infrastructure. I think they are fair figures.

Nomen Nescio