Guys,Happy for you to make money. Just don't want you putting up...

Guys,

Happy for you to make money. Just don't want you putting up your house for something as risky as this.

Denver - Check this out:
http://geology.about.com/cs/rock_types/a/aarockspecgrav.htm

What they are saying is that one cubic centimeter of water is a value of one.

One cubic centimeter of coal is 1.1 - 1.4 depending on ash.

And shale is 2.4 -2.8

While there are a lot of swings and roundabouts in between and some of the figures have a bit more range..... you can see that the "coal" these guys have is hard pressed by at least one definition.... to fit the definition.

Strictly speaking in Geology if a carbonacoeus unit has less than 40% ash its a coal otherwise we call it a carbonaceous shale. For various reasons this isn't a really fair call because if its black and it burns well who cares.

Coking coals are different again. We don't care if they burn. We care about the way they react in a blast furnace. It reduces the iron and provides a stable base for slag and iron to separate. The more impurities in the coal the denser it is AND the more impurities that find their way into the iron.

So... Carabella... mining the Goonyella Lower have again a high ash coal. Most of its properties are better than the Fort Coopers but you start running into similar problems. Seam height variability, coal quality variability and yield issues. Carabella may well have a mine in the making.... but again it is marginal. Underground is even more unforgiving than an ope cut. If you don't have the sums right then it will never make money.

If you have some specific questions I would be happy to answer them.

Gaz