clippings file

A bit of history and perspective. In 1944 the Commonwealth Government required all exports of mineral sands to be concentrated and seperated. Consequently over the years many independant producers sprang up in the industry and they were subsequently taken over when they hit financial difficulty or needed capital for expansion. The companies doing the takeovers were either seeking diversification or integrating backwards to ensure source of supply. eg.The Mineral Securities liquidator in 1971 sold large blocks of shares of Cuden RZ and Consolidated rutile Ltd to the Union Corpn of South Africa.The foreign investors provided access to finance and markets while the innovation and technology for the industry was Australian developed. The Pinter's electrostatic & magnetic seperators, Reichert's cone and spiral seperators and Foysters dry mining techniques for high dunes led the world in innovation. The companies that developed these techniques have really prospered. In 1963 the CSIRO commenced research on the MURSO process for beneficiation of artificial ilmenite. As at 2004 it rates one web page dated 2002 which seems to be a plea for funds to further research the process.I think they have been so starved for funds that they have been left behind and are no longer an APG competitor. The Australian mineral sands industry has had the experience and incentive to innovate and has led the world. Research for the APG technology commenced in 1989 at Newcastle University on Enhanced Roasting & Magnetic Seperation .The company has suffered research and financial setbacks for the past 15 years. Yet it seems that no matter what obsticles are thrown in its way it irrepressibly overcomes them. Looked at from another perspective this is probably the best thing that could have happened ----- it has prevented them from going for the commercialisation phase too early. Trevor Sykes wrote an article in June 03 in the Fin Review about the right and wrong way to process minerals.(you can probably find it on his Pierpont website and it is well worth the read!! )He reviews the many failures of attempting to build state of the art processing plants.eg Murrin Murrin lateritic nickel and Aust Magnesium. To date APG has been a textbook example of the correct pathway to develop a processing plant. Following Trevor Sykes thread-----APG has ----Flow Sheet-,Laboritory testing--,Pilot Plant(1:100 size) Demonstration Plant( 1:6 size) After the Demonstration Plant operates it is vital to evaluate and complete designs on any parts of the process that have proven to be critical, prior to a bankable feasability study for the full scale plant. APG cannot possibly do all this on its own. It has to cosy up to someone with a big balance sheet. It has to do this by continuously developing its process and thus becoming more appealing.You have to see what boxes have been ticked and draw your own conclusions. 1) ISCOR of Sth Africa has recently paid $300 000 to keep its options open re the technology 2) Iluka has an option buy a 10.1% minority position in the company. 3)rumors of another industry player joining the share register. 4) board changes more closely alligned with the next 5 years direction. These events indicate to me that the technology has a good chance of sucess.The image of APG is continually being upgraded. A patent investor should find the company attractive at 3c and it would be a real plus if 1) N Z Steel utilize some part of the process & 2)The newest director C MacDonald actually bought some shares for Ausenco is a well respected engineering co. If anyone should intuitively know the chances for sucess here is a litmus test. When these boes are ticked i'll reach for my checkbook. (again) A couple of years from now it will be smiles all round. What do you think of all that ??