First of all happy new years to everyone hope they enjoyed their time over christmas and new years. Have been absent myself for the same reasons.
Thanks for pointing this out, had the wrong cells hidden. Unfortunately i had 2 columns displayed which is the recovered PPM and column to the right which is percentage make up. These columns are actually legacy and were based off the reported average output composition from the company. As in the the 13.5% and 13.5% for La and Ce is what they reported in the SS would be the composition of their production. So when i started to want to reflect their revenues i.e SS inputs i used these.
When performing the calculated recovered ppm I had that in another 2 x column and inadvertently displayed the wrong ones. These are the ones we've been calculating and talking using head grade inputs and reported recoveries and then averaging the production across LoM.
In short, the values and therefore the end revenues calculated were based of the correct values and i simply displayed the company reported version. So you'll note, nothing changes when i display the right column which the calcs are from.
I'm often asked to present company reported results and then also asked to present figures based on other inputs so I kept both on record and displayed the wrong one.
Table should have been presented as;
Noting the revenues and ppm of recovered values are the same for aforementioned reasons. Only the column in red changed (which to re-iterate were there in the background just not displayed)
You arrived at 15.54/t revenue and myself 15.36/t so we're actually at the same outcome.
In regards to your comments about eastern recoveries being awful - what recoveries are you using or referring to? The initial results aren't obscenely different from initial results on the central area.
These were taken from holes 42 and 46 respectively in the eastern zone.
They go onto explain why the recoveries were low for 135 (under the hard cap top of hole 46) and 134 (base of hole 42) in the following page.
To my understanding this was deliberate to understand where the ionic and colloidal zones lay.
And deliberately testing both high and low grade parts not just cherry picking high zones.
135 was 357ppm TREE-Ce and still managed to reach ~40% with acid consumption of 14kg per ton. Noting PH1 was what the original study used. Essentially this is to understand how the stuff recovers across the different depths and additional spatially across the deposit.
Now we can either use the average head grade of those results and the elemental composition. Or use the head grade as reported in the JORC and assume a similar elemental make-up as either a) the overall jorc because that's reported or the elemental make up of the head grade assay from the met results.
Now these areas average to ~570ppm TREO as a total resource once you work the contained tonnes and then divided back out by resource.
Noting this head grade probably isn't representative of area I only close to area G & H and even then a bit high. I averaged the drill result in that area to get the composition (noting that this isn't JORC reported and i nor the company has published the exact jorc composition specifically for area G, H, I so again reiterating you either use the average jorc composition or used those results. I will show both.
So here is the met recoveries (noting these are the initial recoveries from G, H, and using both normal and poor sections of the hole but albeit at higher head grades. but then electing to grab the lower overall head grade by using 560ppm as a feed stock grade. Noting in my opinion using this composition is probably not accurate because the LREO content is high and varying different to the overall JORC composition any ways.
So using average jorc grade (which is fairly accurate) - the composition from the met results (not representative), recoveries from initial met testing (no optimising) using deliberately seemingly non ionic parts and spot price. Still profitable.
I would garner that;
a) Reserves for this area and JORC in general will have higher cut-off grade increasing head grade input
b) The composition of this area is better than the 4 samples from 2 drill holes.
c) Optimised and representative bulk scale met results from this area will be better
d) HREO and LREO pricing is higher come time to process this area.
When i pulled drill results 18-24 month ago and ran a calc on the composition is had better concentration of elements compared to the central zone.
Using area G/H (the composition that the above table represents) its quite profitable even with the average initial non-representative met results.
Anyways that eastern zone is really a discussion for 24 months unless either met results are published and the elemental composition is published as per JORC reporting specific for those area. To my understand the central zone RL1693 is what the MLA and therefore FS will be based off.
On another note, skimmed over a lot of caper relating to the rehabilitation and all things ESIA.
Obviously didn't care to read the ESIA document... only the IXR announcements. But the document itself was submitted 13 months ago and accepted quite recently. Its a 940 page document. One would have thought would have reached out directly with such concerns over the methods proposed as opposed to posting rhetorically for 13 months+
A fairly comprehensive team working on the inputs and output from both ends. Including the 4 NEMA EIA practitioners. Fair bit of work went into this. Not as if its a 2 page management compiled "study".
Not only does the report talk to what they are going to do, it details considerations to other options plus and minus why they would or would not work. But shows the consideration. Extremely in depth.
The word rehabilitation is listed almost 200 times in the document.
I mean; i'm taking snips but read the report - if you're not satisfied the names of the people and companies that compiled this 950 page report are there. dozen pages of concerns with responses linked back to section of the report. The company as well can probably fill the void. Not punters on HC.
This all linked back to the MLA and the economics therein underpinned by the feasibility study. That's really for the detractors namely those who have now publicly stated this is a personal vendetta.
For yourself adz who for the record isn't even remotely in the same category as others, on your second post in months on HC
"How about we wait for a resource size, more metallurgical work, a PFS, a DFS, a BFS instead of trying to guess how much revenue, what the AISC will be, what the mining rate will be"
Yet here we are both doing and fair bit of high level hypothesising.
FWIW to the forum, myself and adz regularly like and support eachothers posts often arriving at similar or the same outcomes. The main nuances of differences in our outcomes is underpinned by different assumptions. Forum needs to treat these people with respect who are presenting stuff with some evidence to back it up also not making it personal. It's not as if this fella worked for particular MD's and/or only bullishly posted on one stock and trashes everything else.
This took a couple hours to compile to at least get remotely accurate but probably bound to be some errors in there. Hopefully this provides some clarity with some supporting evidence to support it.
Also FWIW i am not stagnant in my views and so people can read my views of stock others are bullish on. I hold more than 1 stock if the RvR is good. Can be for a variety of reasons. By bullishness on IXR is as per Post #:65472953
"Anyways, i think that the NPV for the FS on Makuutu will be higher than that based on the fact that they will likely use forecasted REO pricing similar to almost all other developers in the space. This has a material impact to the revenues and the NPV.
In this instance (as shown) even writing off the Sc credit to a minimum would still yield the entire MC to NPV of 20% if an NPV ~500M can be delineated. Based on 61% ownership.
Upside then is on what value is attributed to the magnet recycling, seperation NPV and or if more than 61% of the project is secured. the 20% moves to 100% when in production in Y1."
"One of the key reasons for me is that I believe the HREO pricing will increase in rate more substantially than the NdPr price which will be a more competitive market. The HREO pricing drives 58% of IXR's revenues. Meaning with the economies of scale the impact the overall ebitda and revenue is impacted more positively (or negatively) by the raw pricing of the HREO. So those projections of the concentrate value in 2025-2030+ i think will eventuate.
Whereas although i expect NdPr price to rise i do think that will be a competitive market. Most other hard rock companies are in a situation where NdPr must rise or if the NdPr price crashes it will detonate the revenues. In this circumstances IXR's revenue across the element suite is more balanced.
The second (and i've mentioned it a few times on the threads here) is the IXR in 5-10 years time will be known more for it's downstream capability and recycling businesses than it necessarily will be for the mine itself"
If one wants to know my logic for buying other stocks check those threads. I am not a me vs them. I can hold a couple in the space for varying degrees of risk mitigation and upside potential.
Thanks for the post of support in my absence. No IXR sold for me recently bought more at 3.2c might go lower, might not. Big Q1 and Q2 ahead so i think good value here. Equally good value in other places too.
Best of luck to everyone and successful investing/trading in 2023.
SF2TH
IXR Price at posting:
3.3¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)