Ghaz, from mine and other posters' conversations with Tony I do...

Ghaz, from mine and other posters' conversations with Tony I do not recall him ever putting a number to that question.

I can, however, refer you to a post by Tony way back in October 2007. It is in response to a post by JoelBaby which I have also included at the bottom of this post. Interesting read given we now have the benefit of hindsight with all areas of uncertainty discussed having been cleared (e.g. native title, EPA approval, etc) and further supporting an overdue re-rating.

At the end of the post, I think you will see Tony correct Joel's estimates and the assumptions he used - this should give you an understanding of the numbers we might find.

Cheers,
JD.


26/10/07 08:00
showman
Suspended
Post #: 2227156
In Reply to msg: #2226779
IP: 59.154.xxx.xxx
Sentiment: None
Disclosure: Stock Held
Views: 253

Hi Joel,

good questions.

1) Drilling will start when we have all approvals in place. The EPA needs to assess our exploration proposal and this can take time and is probably the long lead approval. The date you mention is pretty realistic.

APPROVAL GRANTED PER ANNOUNCEMENT 23/05/2008

2) We will be drilling 33 holes initially (26 into the isthmus region and 7 into the Hardstaff Point region). Refer to the map I have included in our Qtr Activities Report released yesterday. We could of course do many many more and will do more in future campaigns, however the aim is to prove the project commercial and get it up and running ASAP. The amount of drilling is aimed at giving an INITIAL Jorc indicated resources at the isthmus, and a Jorc inferred resources at Hardstaff Point. There will be further drilling after tis, but this will give us enough data to do a feasibility study. Most of the holes will be apx. 200 metres deep. refer to the map i mentioned to calculate strike/length. The ithmus drilling is over apx. 600 metres.

3) The quote from Environs Kimberley is from their website and is quite old. ie: object to exploration on Koolan - Koolan is now being mined!

We will of course face oposition from environment groups. The State need to weigh up environmental concerns with benefits for native title claimants, local economy, State, Federal and shareholders.

We will be out under the microscope on environmental issues, and rightly so. We are confident that we can address any issues.

ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED PER ANNOUNCEMENT 24/04/2008 - APPROVAL GRANTED

4) I can't disclose what we have agreed with the native title claimant group. However the western half of the island is very important to the Mayala People and we will protect it. Also the geology changes about half way across the island and if the ore body exists there it will be too deep for mining - our initial thoughts anyway.

Your calculation is best case. Obviously you need to at least half the Irvine Island Area because the western half is off limits and probably not commercial if the ore body goes that far. However you need to change your Specific Gravity number to around 5.4 which is the SG number for c*ckatoo ore body, the same ore body that is found on Irvine.

hope this helps.

Tony.



POST BY JOELBABY:

Hi,

I have 4 questions relating to the practicalities of mining Irvine Island.

First question - when is drilling anticipated to start - do we need to wait for the beginning of the dry season in April?

Second - 32 Drill holes is not that many. What kind of depth and strike length/width are PLV anticipating to drill with these holes?

Third - What can Pluton do about the environmental opposition that they will no doubt face when they want to commence mining operations? Here is an extract I found on an greenie website:

"Environs Kimberley has objected to Koolan Iron Ore’s application to explore for iron ore on Irvine Island and is seeking advice about action we can take in response to the current Portman Mining application over the same ore body. We don’t believe this or other islands in the magnificent Buccaneer Archipelago should be similarly sacrificed."



Fourth - Native Title clearance with the Mayala people was clearly important. But reading between the lines it looks like PLV may be restricted to only drilling/mining certain areas. 700Mt may represent the total potential iron ore in the island.... but surely the company can tell us:
- What %age of the island they anticipate that they can or cannot be mined??

Here is the problem with the 700Mt potential figure, and a quick way to calculate it yourself:

Irvine Island Area x Depth x Specific Gravity of Iron Ore
= 8,000,000 sqm x 35m x 2.8
= 784 Mt

But there is no way that PLV are going to be allowed to mine the entire island.... Hence my question about the proportion of the Island that is feasible.


Just my thoughts, and I'd be interested to hear your insights.


Joel