to be fair to vml... I should point out some errors in what I wrote previously, regarding todays ann from vml. just take it as another aurumouterspace 'airswing'..
for the stage 1, they mention 'mined and processed tonnes' as 610Kt per annum (total 3.71MT). I wrote, that they don't make it clear if this is how much dirt needs to be moved all told (i.e. diluted and pre-sorted). it seems this would be the 'mined' figure, using 0.54% grade and a total of ~12kt WO3 (19500mtu per year for 6.1 years).
to make their ~AUD$32M npv makes sense, you'd have to assume a 50% recovery (quite a conservative figure) and at least 10% dilution, or equivalent variations, along with the higher price (~USD $215/mtu) and the 0.65 XR that they associate with this jan 2009 'feasibility'. either that or far more serious dilution or strip ratio etc. they do say that 'met' work at watershed has been 'highly successful' (i would have thought that would mean better than 50% recovery) this is one of the things that threw me before, i was assuming ~70% recovery. (highly successful)
call me a dummy, but some of this is confusing info from the sources mentioned, at the very least
allowing for my errors, I still can't see any obvious reason for the large difference in resource figures, though. maybe they have just neglected the websites' currency. It is also unusual IMO to not include the whole resource (if mineable) into the feasibility, maybe due to a satellite nature of the orebodies (multi pits etc?)... stage 1 is only 3.71MT of an supposed 11.6MT resource, why would 7.9MT (2/3) be left out? (jan 2009 resource update total 11.6MT) this is big capex for 6.1MT (AUD $69.1M)......
anyhow, not a vml thread, so well past time for me to shut up.
III Price at posting:
10.6¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
