insider trading, page-42

NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN GETTING INTO A LONG ARGUMENT ON THIS ONE BUT THERE SEEM TO BE A NUMBER OF BLOGGERS WHO TAKE WHAT MR TIBBS SAYS AS GOSPEL SIMPLY BECAUSE HE SHOUTS LOUDLY AND QUOTES 'FACTS'. IN THE INTEREST OF BALANCE LET'S EXAMINE SOME REAL FACTS. MY COMMENTS IN CAPS.

Ubull

A lot of generalities here, & a helluvalot of innacuracy:

"Not sure I agree with the assumption that alaskite ore can be mined for $19/lb."

This is nonsense! RIO have been, and still are, profitably mining Rossing at around $17 p/lb and they are locked into sales contracts at $35 p/lb and below!!

FIRST I'D LIKE TO SEE THE SOURCE OF THE $17/LB QUOTE. SECOND, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT IT IS VERIFIABLE, THE VAST MAJORITY OF ROSSING CAPITAL EXPENDITURE COSTS ARE COMPLETELY WRITTEN OFF AND THEREFORE WILL NOT PART OF THE OPERATING COSTS THAT WOULD BE QUOTED. IN 2005/6, BEFORE THE CONTRACT/SPOT URANIUM PRICE ROSE ABOVE $35/LB ROSSING WAS DUE FOR CLOSURE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS LOSING MONEY (WITH ALL THOSE LONG TERM CONTRACTS QUOTED IN PLACE) AND THE ADDITIONAL CAPITAL COSTS OF EXTENDING THE PIT WOULD HAVE MADE THIS WORSE. I WAS IN NAMIBIA AT THE TIME, THIS CAN BE VERIFIED BY GOING TO http://www.rossing.com/2007performance.htm WHERE YOU CAN SEE THAT LOSSES IN 2003 (N$140M) AND 2004 ($N75M) WERE FOLLOWED BY A MASSIVE CAPITAL PROGRAMME IN 2006 AND PROFITABILITY RETURNING.

"Industry rule of thumb for Namibia at current long term prices is that calcrete needs to be north of 200ppm (assuming near surface) and that alaskites need to be north of 400ppm (near surface)"

Industry rule of thumb for Namibia! Whose thumb are you talking about!! Show us ONE industry reference to back up that ridiculous statement! Its the opposite way around. Calcrete deposits, especially LH are much more expensive to mine & more importantly peach & produce uranium from than alaskite.

THE THUMBS IN QUESTION BELONG TO TWO DIRECTORS OF PALADIN/LANGER HEINREICH - WHO KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FACTS ON THE GROUND DON'T YOU THINK? IN ADDITION ALL PALADIN RESOURCE STATEMENTS FOR LH HAVE A CUT-OFF GREATER THAN 200PPM - BECAUSE THEY, THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE PUT UP A MINE IN THE LAST 10 YEARS, BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN'T MAKE MONEY ON A FULLY COSTED BASIS AT SUCH LOW GRADES WITH CURRENT PRICE PROJECTIONS.

Generally the alaskite is very hard granite-like rock - like at Rossing - and has to be blasted out and must be crushed and milled to get it into a state that can be processed ... calcrete is essentially compacted sand/earth and is much easier to mine and process"

Mate, very general ... Firstly sandstone is a misnomer, it is NEITHER sand nor stone, it is ROCK! Sandstone can be as hard as alaskite depending on the geology. Both sandstone & alskite will require blasting, the difference being sandstone is actually MUCH harder to extract the uranium from than alaskite, and also much harder on equipment than alaskite. In order for PDN to get the U out of LH, it has to be ground extremely fine, and being mainly quartz, it is murder on the crushers & rollers. The uranium from BMN's alaskite is proven to be much easily leacable, not needing fine grinding. LH also has very high carbonate content, and uses up to FOUR TIMES the amount of alkaline & reagents that BMN will need in acid & reagents at Anomaly A, and latest studies show that will decrease for BMN even further.

I WAS NOT COMMENTING ON THE METALLURGY - JUST THE BASIC MINING PROCESS REQUIRED TO GET THE ORE INTO A PROCESSABLE STATE. MY BASIC POINT - BEFORE BEING POUNCED ON - WAS THAT AN ASSUMPTION THAT LOW GRADE ALASKITE IN NAMIBIA CAN BE MINED FOR $19/LB IS A RISKY ONE.

JUST TO GET TECHNICAL HERE ARE SOME GEOLOGICAL DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS.....MAKE YOUR OWN MINDS UP...

CALCRETE - Conglomerate consisting of surficial sand and gravel cemented into a hard mass by calcium carbonate precipitated from solution and redeposited through the agency of infiltrating waters, or deposited by the escape of carbon dioxide from vadose water.

ALASKITE - In the United States, a commonly used term for a granitic rock containing few, if any, dark minerals. The term is used to designate granitoid rocks in which quartz constitutes 20% to 60% of the felsic minerals and in which the ratio of alkali feldspar to total feldspar is greater than 90%; i.e., the equivalent of alkali granite.


Many of the projects such as Valencia (Alaskite) and Uramin (calcrete) will require a steep increase in U prices to be viable on a stand alone basis. I seem to remember the original Valencia feasibility results when released assumed U prices north of $100/lb.

LOL ... Oh hell! You better hurry and tell Uramin that because they have already started on their mine & desalination plant. They might appreciate the advice!

URAMIN/AREVA DO NOT REALLY CARE WHAT IT COSTS THEM TO EXTRACT THE URANIUM - THEIR BUSINESS MODEL REQUIRES THEM TO HAVE GUARANTEED SOURCES OF FUEL SO THAT THEY CAN SELL TURN-KEY SOLUTIONS TO THEIR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT CUSTOMERS. AREVA WILL DEVELOP TREKKOPJE ON THIS BASIS TO FUEL CHINES REACTORS BUT A NUMBER OF OTHER COMPANIES LOOKED AT THE DATA WHEN URAMIN WAS LOOKING FOR A PURCHASER AND COULD NOT MAKE THE NUMBERS ADD UP ON A STAND-ALONE COMMERCIAL BASIS.

Many of the projects such as Valencia (Alaskite) and Uramin (calcrete) will require a steep increase in U prices to be viable on a stand alone basis. I seem to remember the original Valencia feasibility results when released assumed U prices north of $100/lb - not a bad bet but another variable to be considered.

Once again utter nonsene! Both have full BFS out showing they are economical at CURRENT U prices, and both moving toward production - something that WOULDNT happen if what you said had an ounce of truth.

PLEASE PROVIDE THE RELEVANT QUOTES FROM BOTH THE FORSYS AND URAMIN BANKABLE FEASABILITY STUDIES THAT YOU QUOTE ABOVE. THE ONLY RELEASE FROM FORSYS THAT I KNOW ABOUT WAS A PRE-FEASABILITY OF MAY 16TH 2007 AND I QUOTE FROM IT BELOW...I DON'T REMEMBER A BFS FROM URAMIN AND IF THERE WAS ONE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN THE DAYS OF $100/LB URANIUM - PRIOR TO THE AREVA TAKEOVER. BUT WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SEEING ANY HARD DATA THAT CAN BE PROVIDED BY YOU. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU ASSERT VERY STRONGLY THAT BOTH COMPANIES HAVE A) FULL B) BANKABLE FS'S OUT AT C) CURRENT U PRICES.

FROM FORSYS 'A pre-tax net present value (NPV) of US$341M (CAD$378M) was calculated for Valencia based on uninflated cash flows and an 8% discount rate. This assumes a conservative price for U3O8 of US$75/lb across the life of mine except for the first three years of supply, where the price of US$100/lb was used. By way of reference, the current spot price of U3O8 as quoted by UxConsulting is $US120/lb'.

Paladin's calcrete deposit is close to the surface ... and is much easier to mine

Newsflash! It doesnt matter how close to the surface the uranium is, what matters is the STRIP RATIO. For example, LH has their ore 20 to 30 metres below surface ... sounds good, nice & shallow! But how wide are the intercepts ... 5m, 10m? BMN might have their ore as deep as 300m below surface, but it starts in parts from the surface! & in fact some of it is ABOVE ground in exposed alaskites. BMN have announced their strip ratio for Anom A already & it is essentially the same as LH, they just go deeper, while LH is spread for many KLM's along the paleochanel. Both will end up removing the SAME amount of dirt.
I THINK YOU ARE CONFUSING THE AMOUNT OF DIRT (STRIP RATIO) WITH THE COST OF REMOVING THE DIRT. ESSENTIALLY THE RELEVANT PIECE OF INFORMATION IS THE COST OF REMOVING A TONNE OF OVERBURDEN - IT IS MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE - GENERALLY - WITH VERY HARD ROCK ORE BODIES THAN WITH OTHERS AND ALSO WITH VERY DEEP ORE BODIES - ONE REASON THAT NOT EVERYTHING IS MINED OPEN-CAST.

In fact just about everything you said is wrong! I only agree with your last paragraph as the calcrete & alskite deposits are indeed incompatible. But that wouldnt stop PDN showing interest in BMN as BMN own all the ground around LH, including the primary uranium source for LH.

NOT CORRECT - TORO HAVE EPL 3668 WHICH ENCOMPASSES ALL THE GROUND WEST AND SOUTH OF THE MINE. BANNERMAN DO HAVE EPL 3346 WHICH IS NORTH AND EAST - BUT THEY ARE MISSING THE POTENTIALLY IMPORTANT BIT, MORE RELEVANT TO BOTH SECONDARY DEPOSITS AND THE PRIMARY SOURCE, EPL 3500 OWNED BY PALADIN/LANGER HEINREICH. I'M AFRAID THAT EVEN WHEN YOU AGREE WITH ME YOU DON'T MAKE SENSE. AS YOU SAY YOURSELF PRIMARY URANIUM (ALASKITES) CONFLICTS IN TERMS OF PROCESSING WITH THE SECONDARY URANIUM (CALCRETES) AT LH - SO UNLESS PALADIN WANTED TO SET UP A COMMERCIALLY STAND ALONE, BRAND NEW PROCESSING PLANT BANNERMANS GROUND WON'T EVER BE INTERESTING.

I'LL HAPPILY AGREE WITH ANY HARD FACTS AND VERIFIABLE QUOTES FROM THE COMPANIES YOU MENTION THAT YOU CAN SOURCE TO BACK UP YOUR INVECTIVE. IN THE MEANTIME I'D ADVISE BLOGGERS TO QUESTION EITHER FACTS OR MOTIVES WHEN OTHERS REACT SO RUDELY AND DEFENSIVELY.

You need to go away and do some proper research.
I'M NOT AN INVESTOR, I'M IN THE BUSINESS. I DON'T HOLD BMN AND HAVE NO AXE TO GRIND.