InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 182
Posts 11456
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/25/2010

Re: Teuchter post# 3406

Wednesday, 05/09/2012 1:54:42 PM

Wednesday, May 09, 2012 1:54:42 PM

Post# of 4675
Thanks for the further info, Teuchter.

Two comments:

1) You wrote: "but given that the BMC grade is potentially 3 to 4 times that of AMY, anybody interested in the EMM market must pay close attention to BMC."

But what we've learned from this EMM biz is that high grade does not necessarily make for lowest-cost, most profitable prospects. South Africa has highest grade Mn deposits in today's world, but are barely profitable.

2) You also wrote: "If AMY can sustain the very low operating costs they identified in the PEA then its a winner."

A caveat is in order here: no one in their right mind expects, with oil/energy costs roughly triple what they were in 1H 2009, for AMY's production costs for EMM to come in at 44 cents/lb (as estimated in that 3-year-old PEA for AMY). I'm guestimating more like 80 cents/lb, plus or minus 5 cents. Meanwhile, EMM price is much higher than the $1.10 used for AMY's PEA three years ago. It was trading as recently as 8 months ago in the $1.80s N.America prices, and fell to low $1.60s on fears over Europe and China. But even in $1.60s, if AMY can produce for 80 cents/lb, they'll be more profitable than the 2009 PEA indicated. Although we also have to realize the payback period will increase by several months, b/c we're looking at a mining/processing startup CAPEX of, what, about $150M, compared to the $90M identified in the old PEA.

We'll soon have firmer numbers for AMY....