InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 1156
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/18/2013

Re: StoogeNo4 post# 9749

Friday, 01/10/2014 1:39:36 PM

Friday, January 10, 2014 1:39:36 PM

Post# of 14019
Per the Kibaran PR:

"...This includes large and very large flake sizes – favourable distribution with 73.8% in the +106 micron fraction and 21.6% in the +300 micron fraction, which is the high value graphite.

The project's graphite also has a very low percentage of fines, which is the low value graphite (26.2% in the -106 micron).
There is ‘expansion’ capacity – as the graphite is considered suitable for the 'expanded' graphite market."

So to compare with ENZR:

LOW GRADE
-105 to 105 microns = 140 mesh and higher
Kibaran = 26.2%; ENZR = 23.5% (and 28.9% passing -150 mesh)

106 microns = 140 mesh and lower
Kibaran = 73.8%; ENZR = unclear

HIGH GRADE
177 microns = 80 mesh
Kibaran = ~50%; ENZR = 47.6%

300 micron = 50 mesh
Kibaran = 21.6%; ENZR = 21.6% (same)

Carbon contents appear comparable: Kibaran ~95%C and ENZR ~96%-97%C.

http://www.kibaranresources.com.au/IRM/Company/ShowPage.aspx/PDFs/1079-98605711/KibaranResources

Our project appears comparable in gradation, and we have on the order of 10 times more of it. Total graphitic carbon appear the same. Can't speak to purity.

It looks to me like Kibaran is nowhere near production. With such a small resource, their production costs will likely be much higher.

In the end, Kibaran appears to be a small deposit. They made a deal, but there is no indication that they can keep it as I haven't been able to find any PEA studies or any indication whatsoever that they have the ability to raise money to build a mine. While their resource appears very good, this may be nothing more than a publicity stunt. They're too small to worry about.