Sorry to revive an old discussion but for some it might be wise...

Sorry to revive an old discussion but for some it might be wise to take a look @ BAR's SS before we get too frothy on ours.

I am a fan of setting a conservative price for Cobalt and Copper and taking the time to get the SS numbers as attractive as possible (get costs down).


http://www.mtthirstycobalt.com/wp-c...0/Mt-Thirsty-Cobalt-Project-Scoping-Study.pdf

At first glance it looked ok to me ... but this is not my area of expertise..

Cobalt head grade .12%, Nickel head grade 0.52%...
recovery cobalt 73%, Nickel 21.5%..
24 months to construct and commission
mine life 21 years
exchange rate AUD:USD 0.74
operating costs A$43/t
Capital Costs A$212M
etc etc etc..

http://www.mtthirstycobalt.com/wp-c...0/Mt-Thirsty-Cobalt-Project-Scoping-Study.pdf
however, the SS used cobalt price of US$72,200 (Nickel price of $15,500).

Price of cobalt at the time was < $60,000

The market did not like what they saw.. SP went from ~7.2c to less 4c very quickly... languishing just above 4c now.

IMHO, we are fortunate that SS is now, not back then ... a delay of a few weeks is not a bad thing at all with Cobalt price continuing to look strong... let the market get used to this new level for a bit longer with more rises expected... then offer a Co price in our SS that ticks the boxes of making the mine profitable and being conservative in it's estimates.

I am not saying that it was wrong for BAR to set the price of cobalt @ 72,200... indeed, it is well above that level today.... or even that it is the reason that the SS was so poorly received.. those reasons are dissected on the BAR threads, along with the high hope threads just prior to it's release.

Mostly I am saying that CLA having a conservative SS might not set rocket ships off for SP... but it is less likely to have it blow up on the launch pad.

Once again... BB would be well aware.. no doubt having watched many of the SS's fail to launch before.

GLTAH... looking forward to the SS.