@tbirdsrgo ..... Apparently the companies own announcements are now misinformation, LOL You do realise that that map is from the presentation by SGQ, not anyone else... you do realise that the resource numbers are from the PEA done on this exact project, nowhere else....
How about you talk about the project, size cost etc. If I'm so incorrect about the 80kt of mineralisation above 2% then prove me wrong...
I take my information from existing studies done on this project, that only showed it profitable with high prices for revenue. WA1 uses a niobium price $US20,000 lower in their announcements. Lynas used a TREO basket price around 25% lower than the PEA.
Here is the PEA link for everyone to check for themselves... (pg 12 for the 80kt of Niobium resource above 2%).
https://itafos.com/site/assets/files/1773/itafos-araxa_technical_report_final-.pdf
It's no wonder Itafos sold off the project for mostly cash, instead of even bothering to do a feasibility study on it (as recommended by the PEA to add value)...
I'm willing to bet your comeback totally lacks any substance or numbers or references showing anything different, but still claims 'misinformation' with the usual lack of any evidence.
Did you know the CBMM resource has thorium levels of 1200ppm, and the processing they use has to reduce these levels, which adds costs, but luckily they process 2.5% grade ore.
I've not seen any reference to the thorium levels in this Araxa project, why doesn't the company show them??? Isn't that something that might be important if the plan is to process am much lower grade, because they don't have enough high grade?? How about you ask JP about the thorium levels and plans to make whatever levels a non issue and get back to us all??
Just to show it's not misinformation, but very, very, real, here's a quote from the IAEA pg 39 for anyone interested in information...
" The ore mineral mined is pandaite, a Ba-containing variety of pyrochlore containing up to 2% Th and some U. The mean grade in the mined ore in the weathered zone (canga) reaches up to 0.13% Th, which results in total Th resources to ~400 000 t Th."
"Thorium is not recovered at Araxa. During the production of ferroniobium, impurities enter into the slag, and annually ~ 1000 t Th and ~ 100 t U are disposed in the slag [52]. If an economic process is developed to recover Th and U from the slag, Araxa could become a by-product producer both for Th and U.
https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE-1877web.pdf
Why are none of the holders discussing anything about the entire project, instead of repeatedly looking at some nice grades over a very small area?
IMHO shareholders should vote to NOT take on this project as there are way too many red flags that the promoters never want to discuss, if the company ever gets around to calling the EGM (now 6 days behind the scheduled date as per the presentation).
(20min delay)