Hang
While I am waiting for your reply from my previous post , . . . . . .
I write the following to point out to shareholders and those contemplating becoming a BLR holder. That your statements using BMN, as I have politely pointed out previously, are akin to "Apples & Oranges".
Some more facts for you to ponder . . . . . .
In Warwick Grigors ( BGF Equities Research Feb 2011 ) Uranium Sector Review there are 32 U companies covered in the report.
On page 9, the companies are categorized into 3 Project Types.
(1) ISL @ ISR Projects
(2) Milling Projects
(3) Heap Leach Projects
Warwick himself points out that companies should be assessed to their peer group, not only with respect to the commodity but also the style of operation, in order to make meaningful comparisons.
Your company is a (1)
BLR is a (2)
BMN is a (3)
Before you rattle on about the pot calling the kettle black, in regard to comparing BLR and your company's production cost per lb. I believe it was a previous poster who brought up what he thought were high production costs per lb . . . . . . evidently he was misinformed. As is well known, a quality ISL/ISR project should be able to attain a lower production cost per lb, because of lower upfront costs.
That is why i was a little surprised when it was established that your company's production per lb is $31.55.
With your vast experience and knowledge, you must be able to see that with an extra 30 000 000 lb Jorc increase at Hansen, to the 60 000 000 lb Jorc Taylor ranch, for a total of 90 000 000 lb Jorc @ 600ppm average, cutoff 250ppm. . . . . . . all in basically the one location, it bodes well for a lowering of the $34 lb estimate. . . . . which was derived from the Taylor Ranch Jorc only.
Rather than wait for your reply re above . . . . . P 36 of Warwicks Feb 2011 review makes it perfectly clear that it is cash costs plus royalties and state taxes that he uses.
SwissB
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?