InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 15
Posts 3671
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/23/2011

Re: Blairman post# 2824

Monday, 02/20/2012 11:28:36 AM

Monday, February 20, 2012 11:28:36 AM

Post# of 4675
Thanks again Blairman Good to hear the emphasis on the purity of the EMM, which shows info from that part of the pilot study that, if I am remembering correctly, is not yet reported in final form. I know irregular feed purity from China has been a problem, partly being addressed by the clamp down on the illegal export business.

The AzGS mapping is not just for sake of AMY keep in mind, as there is active Uranium exploration/development ongoing to the north and northeast of the AMY claims, plus there is gold, silver, copper, and I think tungsten and molybdenum potential in the area

IMO the concerns about the ROI will melt away once the pre-feas gets studied. AU selling north towards $2000 but at costs of $350 to $900 is after all not that much better when one talks under or up to some few million ounces compared to 3,500 tonnes (or up to 50,000 ?) if converted halfway to EMD/LMD where cost is what 15% +/- of offtake price without factoring in future demand ? Sure, not as high (for 3,500 tonnes) in gross return total, but major, favorable difference in cap ex. (Little surprising to see the same restraining factor mentioned for REEs, which has a pretty involved and expensive benefaction overhead).

Good to hear the assessment of the management.

Has anyone run on more info on the participation in building prototype batteries that I thought I heard Larry mention in one of the most recent PR interviews. Now some motion toward large smart-grid batteries with AMY supplying MN would really clinch the green upside.


We have a good one here folks. Enjoy the day away from equities.