STA (ASX) Thunderbird vs Coburn

Originally posted by seals ↑

Hmmm. Comments here are not generally unreasonable but the implication that Coburn is lacking in due diligence or relative progress is simply wrong, greater than $20 million to DFS (Definitive Feasibility Study) and bankability wrong. It hasn't been sufficiently attractive to date (head grade a lot to do with that) but it's definitively not short of engineering progress or due diligence.

Coburn is a fully engineered project, with mineral reserves and resources presented to previous JoRC standards 2004. The company has stated it's been unnecessary to update JoRC statements since there's been no material change and that is acceptable under JoRC. So I'm curious how you think the mineralogy or metallurgy will have changed in such a geologically short time frame that it matters materially not having a JoRC 2012 statement as yet?

Same for resource update or studies - nothing's changed that's demanded it in the absence of real prospects of getting it up (ie post 2010/12 period). Engineering was done by Sedgman, metallurgical analysis by several parties including Roche. It's a little hard to conceive of the high level engineering (plant - separators, concentrators etc) being designed adequately with out sufficient knowledge of the metallurgy.

But it is certainly the case that the Coburn data and engineering work would be viewed as stale even if still applicable. Hence DFS is being updated and there will be new engineering specifications. There will be more contemporary information to review soon enough - maybe even enough to actually get the darn thing up this time around. That could well be a problem for SFX actually as Coburn will likely be built a year quicker, based on existing comparative designs, and they'll be competing for a similar pool of investors.

You are concerned about lack of data on certain contaminants. Unfortunately I can't point you to specific detail on those, it's been too long, but the company would probably oblige if they can. Give them a call, even Luke Graham directly, he's very helpful.

I do note that the company has reported on uranium and thorium levels (eg in the DFS) so they have paid attention to certain contaminants. In the absence of alternative data and in the knowledge of a fully engineered DFS, perhaps you could conclude that elements you highlight might actually be trivial at Coburn? And perhaps by corollary, you've also uncovered why it is that it's been so hard to get Thunderbird up despite it's massive size. I've been trying to understand that quandary for several years ie why is no one interested in something so remarkably big and decent in grade, at least for zircon?

Now I'm on record as definitely not in love with Coburn and I am also on record as keen to see Thunderbird developed (different resources, different potential opportunities) but I would argue that, but for updating for current JoRC, the project is at least the equivalent of Thunderbird in both due diligence and progress. Further that Coburn, challenged as it is, has some advantages over Thunderbird eg chloride path vs sulphate path ilmenite and, in respect of non mineral matters, industry relevant experience and important connections. As a side note there, Luke Graham and Peter Watson (executive, adviser) came out of Sedgman with direct knowledge of the engineering requirements of Coburn.

Expand

Doh. Rereading thread and have to add a Note to my own post - I misread @Mineralsands ' post as talking of contaminants, not contents which is what was actually written. Changes the context in specific respects, namely those named contents which aren't contaminant but may be beneficent which I didn't pay attention to due to focussing on the wrong thing! Apologies mineralsands on that point - I'd still refer you to the company though to see what data they have available as the U/th analysis would typically also be part of the studies.