HI All, its been a while since my last post on BLR. I thought i...

HI All, its been a while since my last post on BLR. I thought i will just add and share something more even though grant, buc, gunns and others has done a fabulous job contributing on this thread.

Things are certainly getting exciting and more promising. I have been trying to digest the news recently and read between the lines. Trust me, i have been getting a bit impatient waiting for more news regarding ablation and also the hansen update. IMO ,So far its not the best, but i consider it to be very good news. The Best news ( short term) i am waiting for is for the ablation unit to prove itself to be successful and sustainable in the big picture, Waiting for what GUNNS has been saying on his RECENT post .For BLR to become cash flow positive and self funding. SO lets hope that in few months time we will hear of this.

However, lets face it. there are risk involved with spec stocks - on average the resource stocks has plummeted about 70-80%, not just speccies only.
1. risk of major technical problems with ablation units
2. risk of more nuclear meltdowns
3. risk of war etc eg nuclear
4. issues with greenies eg trying to use delay tactics
5. Unstable economy in some countries. etc

Now, lets look on the bright side, why BLR stands out in this market - poor sentiment in general resource markets, severe pessimism in uranium market.

FIRST I HAVE TO SALUTE THE TEAM FOR THEIR STRATEGIC PLANNING AND EXECUTION.- BEING ADAPTABLE RATHER THAN BEING THE FITTEST! Every time when i look back at what the company has done, and after figuring things out, i have a smile on my face. Ingenious!

1. Azarga our cornerstone investor- providing loan facility up to $2 mill. Thank God! If we can get things up and running earlier, in time, we may not even need this loan. Look at some other companies who are struggling to even raise 500k. Cash is our lifeblood. Otherwise we loose everything we have been working for so far.

2. Becoming a "producer" in the 2H2013 - BLR securing a right to 70% of the revenue from the "october" stockpile. What interest me is that they said: " one of the first sources of ore for the 5tpu trial" Who else is in the picture. Are there many more stockpiles around USA that is stranded? I bet!

BLR basically paid $20k for the October piles = 2 millions shares in BLR x current share price about 1c. Wow that is a pretty good deal. ( it will be worth even more when the share price appreciates!) What excites me is that they can turn dirt into "gold"! something that has been stranded there for nearly 40 years can still be used for good. Not only that, the ablation unit is "cleaning" up the environment too. ( remediaton) Sounds too good to be true. I hope i got this one right.

PS: Please see my correspondence that i have with Eric Coates ( co founder of ablation LLC) not long ago, below in Section A.
I hope that it helps all to understand ablation better through the eyes of one of the founders.

-------------------------------------------------------------
This section is courtesy of grant64
Approximate revenue from the october stockpile

The inclusion of the Vanadium content within the ore, makes the financials look a tad more enticing !

Vanadium included based on current Vanadium price of US$12.47P/Lb.
10,000T @ an averaged (2,500ppm) 0.25% V2O5
= approx 55,000 Lbs x $12.47 P/lb = US$685,000
Vanadium Value approx =US$685,000

Uranium included based on current Uranium Spot price of US$39.50P/Lb.
10,000T @ an averaged (1,300ppm) 0.13% U308
= approx 28,600 Lbs x $39.50 P/lb = US$1,129,000

U3o8 Value approx =US$1,129,000

****What if we use the value of $50 per pound or $60******

$50 x 28600 = 1.43 mill

$60 x 28600 = 1.7 mill
******************************
In My Opinion:

Total Valuation of ore would be in the vicinity of around US$1.84Mill ***** or more
Currency adjusted AU$2.01Mill
Gunns, on your previous 24/7 5T Ablation Production numbers, it shall only take around 31 days to process the 10,000T Nuvemco LLC Stock pile

I WONDER IF BLR GETS 50% OF THE REVENUE OR THE TOTAL?- CAN SOMEONE CLARIFY?****
-----------------------------------------



3. lets not forget out 90.9 Million pound uranium deposit.

COURTESY OF BUC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The key parameters for the development of Hansen are set out below:

* Indicated and Inferred resources of 19.72Mlb U3O8

* at an average grade of 1,270 ppm when applying a 750ppm cut off grade

* Production rate of 2Mlbs U3O8 per annum

* Initial mine life 78 years ( SHOULD BE 7-8 YEARS , I THINK )****

* Operating costs estimated at US$30/lb U3O8
(excluding royalties, taxes & contingency)

* Recovery of ~95% U3O8 in ~10% of mined material
when utilising Ablation

* Offsite milling selected reduces capital costs and streamlines mine permitting
---------------------------------------------------------


LETS HOPE FOR THE BEST AND RECOVERY IN URANIUM PRICE IN THE NOT SO DISTANT FUTURE. !

CHEERS TO ALL BLACK RANGERS!!! and all that intends to invest in BLR



SECTION A - enjoy and imagine the huge potential!
**************

What type of minerals can it be used for apart from uranium? Gold ? silver? What is the limiting factor for the type of mineral that it can be used for?

For remediation purpose, can it be used to clean up some old site with uranium tailings. What other contaminants apart from oil that it can be used for? Can it be used for rare earth metals etc

Can this technology easily be copied by others ( or modified) to the extend that we can loose our advantage? for example samsung vs iphone

How much does it cost to produce the semi commercial unit? Is it more economical and efficient to actually produce more 5ton /hr units and combined their effort VS having 1 big x 20 ton unit?

+++++++++++++++ I HAVE TOTAL RESPECT FOR MR COATES. LETS HOPE THAT ALL THEIR EFFORT WILL COME TO FRUITION SOON.++++++++

Thank you for your email. I'll try to answer your questions in order, but if I miss something, or you have any other questions, please let me know.

First, ablation is not a mineral or element specific process. Ablation only disassociates the constituent fractions of the ore from each other (distinct mineral grains and so forth), so it could theoretically be used on any ore in which the target fraction is a distinct fraction of the ore. The process was actually developed to liberate very fine gold particles from the clay in which they were encased, thereby enabling gravity recovery of the gold (when encased in the clay patina, the average specific gravity of the gold-clay particles was not high enough to be effectively separated). Another way to think of which ores ablation could be used on is to think of the depositional model. Uranium, for example, is usually carried into the formation in a mineralized solution. When this solution migrates into a zone where carbon is present, the uranium precipitates out of solution and forms a mineralized patina around the grains in the host rock. The same depositional model of a mineralized solution migrating into the host rock formation and, upon reaching a structural or chemical barrier, forming a stable mineral, is very common. Though we have not tested the process on other minerals deposited in this way, we feel confident, very confident that the process would work because there is nothing unique about uranium in the mineralized patina that enables ablation. If copper were present instead, the system would perform in the same way and the copper-bearing mineralized patina would be separated from the underlying grain.

The question about tailings can be a bit more difficult to answer depending on what tailings are being discussed. We, for example, know of a number of projects in Wyoming that were mined in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Many of these projects have surface stockpiles of low grade ore that was mined but never processed. As it is just low grade ore, it could be ablated to remove the uranium-bearing mineral patina, just as a higher grade ore could. So on these tailings, the process would work just as it would on any uranium ore. If, however, by tailings we mean material that has been chemically leached, then that something we have not tested, but there is one key difference that would need to be addressed.

Once an ore is leached, it has been chemically altered and the uranium remobilized. It is possible that, after mobilization, the remaining uranium and other mobilized metals could re-patina around the grains. However, it can also be that the leaching has compromised the grain microscopically, allowing the leaching solution, and the mobilized metals, to penetrate the grain structure. During the natural deposition process, this does not occur. Instead, the uranium minerals patina around the grains because, though the host rock formation is permeable, the grains within the host rock are not. After leaching, this may not be the case, so remaining mobilized metals may not only be on the grain surface, but, in some instances, may also be within the grain. Another factor is that remediation of leached material also typically requires chemical neutralization of the reagent used for leaching. When we use ablation to remove the mineralized patina from the a uranium ore, it is a water only process. There are tremendous advantages to that during mining, both economic and regulatory (and environmental). But ablation does not have to be a water only process, so the neutralizing agent could be added to the slurry.

We feel very confident that ablation can be used on these materials, but there are different challenges to address. Part of this confidence comes the fact that the range of applications in which we have tested it - for the remediation of oil contaminated sands, for example - shows that the core process is adaptable enough to meet these challenges. It is just not an application we have tested yet, but it is certainly an application that we want to test.

As to whether the system can be used on rare earth metals, this entirely depends on how these metals are present in the ore. If, like uranium, they are a discrete fraction of the ore, then ablation will disassociate that fraction. Once disassociated, that fraction will have at least one unique physical characteristic different from the other fractions of the ore (size, specific gravity, magnetic susceptibility ...). It is then simply a matter of finding that characteristic and utilizing it to isolate the rare-earth bearing fraction. If the rare earth metal is chemically disseminated throughout the ore, ablation, which is only a physical process, will not disassociate it from the matrix within which it is chemically bound.

The technology, both the system and the process, is protected under US and international patents that cover the system and its application, both for uranium mining as well as other applications. So we feel well protected legally. The patenting was not done with our in-house attorney, but an independent intellectual property firm. And, while we understand that a patent does not physically prevent anyone from copying the system, there are a number of subtle engineering issues that we have discovered and addressed during development that would not be obvious to someone who might simply look at and copy the system. These are not disclosed in the patent documents because the patent document is broad enough that variations of the system with and without the changes made to address these subtleties are both covered. We require any client coming to our facility to sign an NDA developed by our intellectual property firm. So, from a technology standpoint, we feel well protected as well.

As to the question of is it more economical to produce more 5 ton units or a 20 ton unit. For a number of reasons, a 20 ton unit would not be 4x the price of a 5 ton unit. Consider instrumentation. Both a 5 and 20 ton unit will have to have x-ray and gamma ray to measure how efficiently the system is operating and communicate this back to the plc controlling the system. These systems cost about the same whether they are going on the 5 or 20 ton unit, so, with a 20 ton unit, you get 4 times the production for approximately the same sensor cost, resulting in a much lower sensor cost per process ton on the 20 ton unit. And this is true for a wide range of systems and components. Even the tanks in the system are an example - to store 4x the volume requires a tank approximately 1.6 times the physical size, because we are dealing with volumes. All this means that the unit cost per process ton is less for the 20 ton system than it is for the 5 ton system, so making 4 5 ton systems would cost more than making a single 20 ton system.

I hope that this has answered your questions. If you have more questions, please let me know and I will do my best to answer them.

Thank you again.

Eric Coates
Ablation Technologies, LLC

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:20 AM,