InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 51
Posts 4142
Boards Moderated 1
Alias Born 07/11/2009

Re: downsideup post# 88221

Tuesday, 09/14/2010 5:33:56 PM

Tuesday, September 14, 2010 5:33:56 PM

Post# of 165856
You read my mind on this one, or at least we think the same here. When I put together the report that I did, I realized that I was not considering any of the forward looking elements. I ended it with to be continued, both in terms that the SRSR story is a work in progress, but also that the DD effort put forth in that was incomplete - again because the lack of a forward looking element as you describe.

My thought was that a part 2 is in order, and the next steps in the path to mining would be explored.

The parts I know are that we will have a scoping study, which will lead to a decision on whether to pursue feasibility. Then, we have a feasibility study, where we see a handful of possible scenarios emerge and where the company will select a base case scenario to form the backbone of the subsequent business plan that is developed. And, then of course the company would also be preparing for mine construction, processing facility construction, and ultimately the day the mine opens and production begins. I am definitely oversimplifying the amount of work that could be done in that respect, but that's how I think it plays out.

I would like to look at other scoping studies from other niobium projects. What did they learn? How does Sarissa compare? How long did that process take, etc. Then, do the same for the niobium projects that have announced completed feasibility studies. Again, what was learned and how does SRSR compare? We'd need to address such questions like how many tons of ore will they process each day, a potential mine lifespan, net present value for the project, mine construction and processing facility costs, extraction rates, processing of REE's, where to build the processing facility, where to mine first, etc. I am only scratching the surface here.




It's all IMO