Many have mentioned the failures described in the latest PRs from the company. On the contrary, the releases show the steady execution of a business plan that Scott announced FIVE YEARS AGO. I found the announcement in an online market analysis document that anyone could discover with a Google search. He stated that his plan was to partner with a customer, most likely a Chinese SOE, to advance the project. The PRs show me that he has maintained FOCUS on that explicit goal. The PRs have announced delays – NOT FAILURES. I see an explicit difference.
The PPS is not languishing, it is reflecting risk. IMO, reward is proportionate to risk, but I’ve found some mitigating factors:
1. According to the documentation on the IAG website, the demand for niobium is increasing. I’ve found some other factors that support his while researching today. CBMM recently doubled their production with no apparent impact that I could find on niobium spot prices. Can anyone verify or dispute this? If true, it implies boatloads of good. IAG has invested millions in expanding processing capabilities, and is looking at block caving to access hard to reach sections of their orebody. They are spiking production costs and upfront investments, I’m thinking this implies that they believe there will be a return on that investment. Must be niobium supply is NOT meeting niobium demand. Right? This significantly reduces risks associated with commodity prices, and demand risks.
2. According to the Nemegosenda reports linked on your page, a significant part of the HIGH CONCENTRATION Niostar orebody is RIGHT ON THE SURFACE. Dig it up, put it in a truck, take it to the mill. Simple trenching found concentrations of greater than 1% niobium oxide. There is good justification to explore this. Niobium is VALUABLE right now, and supply is not meeting demand. The location of the orebody significantly reduces extraction cost risks.
3. Gulf Dominion historical data includes large amounts of information from drilling and the adit. Rocks don’t spoil or change. In the past, the niobium spot prices weren’t what they are now. The historical data seems to imply that the deposit is economic. And – the geologic data in the reports implies that the deposit might be much more extensive than reserves indicated by the existing drilling. This reduces scaling and mine life risks.
This is from ONE DAY of solid DD. Anyone could find this information.
My belief is that it comes down to risk associated with process and separation. I can’t find much information on what made Gulf Dominion give up (I think it was process related?) or the results of the metallurgy study that Scott launched back in 2008? Can anyone help me with this?
My guess: Bottom line seems to be that the main barrier to solid BFS financing is proof that a process exists that can efficiently and economically separate and purify Niostar niobium. Beyond that SRSR is GOLDEN.
Looks to me like Scott has Niostar well positioned with a SOE that is spending their own money to mitigate this risk.
