InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 46
Posts 1255
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 06/14/2006

Re: mick post# 3826

Saturday, 12/01/2007 1:44:16 PM

Saturday, December 01, 2007 1:44:16 PM

Post# of 165854
mick.....Great summary of last nights DD session.

I forgot to give my opinion on the worth of the net smelters fee that the company would get as the property was mined. Using the same assumption that the property contained only half of the "potential" 20 million tonnes of .47% niobium, ie. 10 million tonnes; a plant that processed 2500 tonnes per day 330 days per year; a 30% cost basis (assuming an open pit mining operation; and $25/lb of niobium (presently above $30).

Annual gross profit computation:

2500 tonnes/day X 330 days production/year X 2200 Lbs/ton = 1,815,000,000 lbs of ore X .0047 = 8,530,500 lbs of niobium

8,530,500 lbs X $25 = $213,262 500 gross sales - $63,978,750(30% costs) = $149,283,750 gross profits

Net Smelter fee derived from .5% of gross sales profits:

$149,283,750 X .005 = $746,418 per year to SRSR's bottom line for as long as the mine is in operation (10,000,000 tonnes divided by 825,000 tonnes/yr mined = 12 year mine life)

With the present share structure of SRSR (694 Million outstanding) and a conservative P/E ratio of 20 (30-50 is standard for the mining industry in a bull market) the smelter's fee alone without considering any other source of income or asset would be worth 2.15 cents per share ($746,418 div by 694,000,000 X 20).

Now if you want to get really excited just ask yourself the question - what would the share price be if we did more than just broker the property? What if SRSR was a junior partner in the property at 30% ownership with a more substantial senior mining concern footing the bill for drill holes, feasibility study, and plant construction. Instead of a .5% smelter fee, SRSR received 30% - 60x the net smelter fee. Is this a possibility? Heck yes!

What if Scott's new presence in the corporate structure was accomplished in order to allow this much needed marriage with a well heeled mining concern to be consumated. We alrerady have proof that papa Norman of Teck Cominco is not adverse to doing joint ventures with his relatives:

"Then I did some searching on google and I saw Gordon Keevil made several deals with Teck Cominco."

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=24952248

Thanks cmzio for the great find!

Point being that if Norman Keevil (Teck Cominco) has done a number of joint ventures with his nephew's company, wouldn't he be just as motivated to do a deal with the person that sprouted from his loins? - Son SCOTT of SRSR.

Now, you may ask would Teck consider getting involved in a mining play that was not gold, copper, or zinc? I believe that the answer is YES. I quote from Teck Cominco's web site:

"Mineral Exploration Objectives: The objective of Teck Cominco’s Exploration Group is to provide the Company with high quality, sustainable growth opportunities through the discovery or acquisition of top-tier mineral deposits. Exploration resources are primarily focused on the Company’s three core business commodities: copper, zinc and gold. Strategic opportunities in other metals, and high margin mineral commodities are also actively pursued.


Teck Cominco combines in-house expertise, innovative technologies and exploration partnerships in its overall business plan. The Company's exploration group has developed successful and global scale working relationships with senior and junior mining and exploration companies."

http://www.teckcominco.com/Generic.aspx?PAGE=Exploration&portalName=tc

This whole scenario is based upon fact, but I have made many assumptions that may prove to be inaccurate. Unless Scott Keevil has been estranged from his father, I firmly believe that Teck Cominco will be playing a big part in SRSR'S future and will ensure their mining success. This, I believe, will turn into a very profitable long term play for SRSR and for those investors who have the foresite and cahones to stay the course. AMHO .....GLTA.... Jim