Share price - General Discussion, page-1401

PM8;
-Feedstock is around 25000ppm average TREO for weathered zone. Meaning 1T of dirt has 25kg of TREO.
-At 35% recovery every 1T of dirt i put only 8.75kg of the 25kg is recovered.
-Reveiewing the recent concentrate they claimed to produce a concentrate containing 33.5% NdPr.

Pausing here it's unknown what the remaining REO constituent here is.
i.e. if thats the only REO its a 33.5% concentrate.
If there is say another 33.5% in all the other elements then you have a 67% concentrate.
Now using HAS as an example. They have the highest percentage of concentrate of NdPr % to REO which was 22%. Their total concentrate % was 57%. So if producing 33.5% i think perhaps PM8 might yield 65-70% concentrate which is very good.

*note previous NdPr was 7.5% now 33.5%. If front end is fixed at 2mtpa overall output decreases but at higher concentrate (tick). we'll come back to this.
Now to produce 70% you need 700kg of TREO in 1T of liquor.
So 700kg/8.75kg = 80T.
In summary I need 80T of dirt at 25000ppm with 35% recovery to produce 1T of TREO ndpr 33.5% concentrate.

I will assume a 2mtpa plant = 2000000T/80T = 25000T of MREC. this is the theoretical output of your ndpr 33.5% concentrate.

Moving back towards my estimates on revenues see below. Now i've had to make assumptions because the MREC release wasn't detailed. previously recoveries were linear across elements which is typical. But in this instance for them to produce an enriched NdPr they must be recovering the NdPr at higher rates than the other elements (deliberately). As such i've made some archaic adjustments to try and replicated a 33.5% NdPr concentrate at a 70% TREO concentrate in liquor. Noting the below the NdPr goes to around 31% MREC which is close enough IMO. I also reduced the 2 lowest value amount element in La and Ce which is the best case scenario. If you high value element aside from NdPr are the ones being not recovered your concentrate basket decreases.

nevertheless looking at this below assume 50% payability (which arguably PM8 may receive a better amount producing a carbonate perhaps even 60%-70% IMHO. Looks like maybe around $10USD plus or minus a bit depending on a few assumptions.



okay so now your product is worth 10USD/kg.
Any i assume if 2Mtpa feed with the above statement you will produce 25000T of concentrate.
25000T x 1000kg x 10USD = 250M USD annualised revenue.

Now move to opex. Hard to calculate this one, but remember my comment at the start.
*note previous NdPr was 7.5% now 33.5%. If front end is fixed at 2mtpa overall output decreases but at higher concentrate (tick). we'll come back to this.

If the front end of your plant is fixed at 2mtpa which my assumption then the above statement is null and void and simply means you produce overall less tonnes of concentrate than previous. i.e. 25000T instead of 55000 odd previous but at a higher grade. Note in my bogus spreadsheet how the 4200tonnes of ndpr remains the same in terms of the total tonnes of NdPr which support my workings. Essentially you're mining the same amount of dirt, and getting the same amount of NdPr out but you've doubled the concentrate grade.

-Let sense check - your normalised basket goes to 142 which is now inline with peers also good. (see spreadsheet
-let sense check - Also your PFS was around $3.6USD right? so now it's double in concentrate 3.6 x 2 =$7.2 and a little $3 premium from the Carbonate seems to work out ballpark right.
- Also note the revenue of your product compared to HAS 10usd comapred to 17usd. Their basket is 60% better but your concentrate is 13% higher (theoretically) this again would seem about right. But probable HAS is overcooking their numbers (my guess the latter).

However i'm going to use HAS as sense check here. It's got lower grade feed producing less % concentrate. Overall they would need to mine more tonnes than PM8. I can't see PM8 maintaining the 65MUSD and also cant see them spending more than HAS so perhaps 100M USD is appropriate.

lets run through the opex cost input of a typical rare earth mine. (see snip below)
-mining costs/t should remain linear with the same mined tonnes it would just be the rest of cost inputs.
-labour probably no change IMO
-Power, i assume there may be a moderate increase here with more complex process circuitry
-reagents, i assume there may be a decent increase here with more complex process circuitry
-consumables, i assume there may be a small increase here withmore assets in the circuit in general
-maintenance, i assume there may be a decent increase here with more assets in the circuit in general


If PM8's cost breakdown is remotely similar in terms of % i think roughly 50% remains unchanged. i.e. 65MUSD previously. Therefore 32.5M remains unchanged. Of the remaining lets assume the cost doubles. to 70M.

meaning overall cost is around 102.5M USD. So just sense checking my original 100M thumbsuck. Looks ballpark

Moving toward capex. Honestly no idea. as no idea of the process circuit used to yield the 33.5% concentrate. So look i'm going to say a fair chunk more than the 145M (logical) and less than HAS (logical). lets toss in 250M USD. but honestly people could use whatever here i really don't know.

So assuming a slightly ramped production profile taking 50M USD profit in Y1 100M profit Y2 150M profit Y3 for 20 years. 12% discount rate

IRR = 43.5%
NPV = 750M USD

now there is alot of IMO IMO IMO in all that. I am probably most comfortable with the revenue. The operational cost is probably near enough and capex are quite loose but just a 1hr think about this and back of napkin stuff.

if revenue is fairly well around the 250M USD. Then ultimately that capex figure i pulled out the thin air will impact the IRR.

If the operations costs go up or down there will alter the NPV a little more. People can toy around with figures. for inferrance discount rate of 10% added 150M USD to the NPV

market cap to NPV would bear around 1/5th which is probably around the ballpark consider stage of development.

Corrupt, bogus, crappy spreadsheet attached to be set on fire. Also, i only peruse the PM8 forums time to time, has anyone else has a crack at the BFS figures. I'd just like to compare to see where the might be major discrepancies and i can make adjustments accordingly.



I will probably re-read this post and realise lots of errors.

SF2TH