Replies to post #51848 on Sino Agro Food Inc (fka SIAF)

[rhe66]

wasn't that why solomon was trying to get funding at any costs to stay ahead of the competition?

[viking86]

yes, that seems like serious competition directly from Australia where the A-Power/ RAS technology comes from. The RADQUA (or "Fujian") project is designed for 5,000 MT/yr production capacity with 16.6 ha= 166,000 sqm (square meters) built up area at a total cost of $AUD 300M = $266M USD.

Let's compare apple-to-apple the Fujian project with some of SIAF's current and potential fish and prawn projects to see how they measure up with us based on a few basic considerations:

-production: This project at 5,000 MT/yr is about the size of a 4000-5000MT/yr "unit farm" that was recently discussed by RD and me when we discussed the 330,000 MT mega project being contemplated by SIAF.

- land / builtup area: for 5,000 MT annual production they would need to build 5,000/50= 100 double-APM tanks of 10x10x2.4 cbm size (similar to the ones used at FF1), each producing 50MT/yr acc. to the original APM technology that SIAF has a master license of. That would require 10,000 sqm= 1 ha of tank surface area . So the Fujian project has a comparatively low land utilization ratio of 1/16.6= 6%, compared to 0.16/0.99= 16% at FF1 and presumably 0.32/2.31= 14% at PF1. OTH, the Fujian farm has a land size (16.6 ha) very similar to FF2 (16.5 ha) albeit latter has currently only 16 tanks and a production capacity of only 2,000MT targeted for 2016. We all know that land is a precious resource in overpopulated China, so compared to FF1 and PF1 the Fujian project has a land utilization ratio less than half of that used at FF1 and PF1 but higher than FF2.

- project cost: SIAF's typical development cost is about $10M for every 1,000 MT production acc. to calculations by RD quoted below. So for a production of 5,000 MT SIAF's dev cost would be $50M (without LUR?). Comparatively, the Fujian project fetches a much higher cost of $266M (probably including LUR?). But even if one includes some reasonable LUR, it sure seems that SIAF development cost is MUCH lower than what Glenview charges for the Fujian RAS aquaculture project.

Bottomline: SIAF seems to hold a vast edge compared to Glenview in building cost effective RAS type fish farms, both from a land-to-tank utilization POV and a total-development- cost POV.

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=94971413