the next fmj, page-20

For the most part I agree with you RedLion

I think the posters are trying to more compare the potential run up that FMJ had of recent times

Totally agree any direct comparisons to STB, FMJ & ELM are not going to be that helpful - all appear to be looking at conventional mining methods

The best comparisons are RDM & Intrepid Potash in USA

I was initially concerned by the 1,800m depth as well until I had a good go at trying to understand solution mining.

Need to think of it more like drilling for oil than conventional underground mining. Underground would be out of the question at that depth obviously.

It appears that the major cost issue is not going to be a cash cost per tonne due to depth but the captial costs and transportation as they will be trucking it out of the desert.

In saying that if anyone has concerns best to have a good look at the Intrepid Potash website. They explain the process well. They operate three Potash mines (Utah & New Mexico) and provied 1.5% of world Potash requirments (circa 55mill Tonnes P/A- so around one mill tonnes).

Considering they have a MCap of $2.24Bill & this project for TRH may be looking at 2 mill tonnes p/a - this company is not to be sneezed at IMO

I know alot of water to go under the bridge (and the ground) yet but not wise to write this one off on the basis of depth alone or comparisons to three other ASX companies that frankly all have their own concerns due to the countries they are operating in (and how far the SP's have run up in recent times).

Just IMO