Except for a very few brave souls I seem to be doing most of BML posts lately and am not comfortable doing so....at the same time I mainly only pass on printed articles and scrupulously avoid ramping, so I will proceed, as the Board itself seldom has anything to say to keep shareholders up to speed on progress (if any).
I do venture an opinion here that the brothers mentioned in Otago's good article referred to above have appeared perhaps a bit problematic in some Australian dealings and I would be happier for BML's future if someone else (ARM perhaps) came in on a JV basis. Unless PV /actually it may fall to the BCL liquidator to decide/ do a JV, rather than the BML assets (is this the whole 100% or just the 70% remaining with BML? or just the 30% with BCL?
) being "picked ...up on the cheap" I can't see how BML will improve. (I know Otago is not saying this report is a good thing, he/she is merely reporting the article, which is what we all try to do, and that is appreciated by all, I am sure.)
On a different slant, AMUR Minerals is a Ni Cu developer in Russia. Deposit may be up to 5 Km long. Some of the area is "steep and challenging terrain" unlike BML's Bots areas which I understand are mainly relatively flat.
Current defined "inferred resource estimate" 10.9 mt averaging 0.74% Ni, 0.2% Cu, average thickness 22.6 metres per hole drilled. The resource is still being drilled up so will likely increase, and there is also (as with Maibele) underground potential. They note the cutoff grade used is 0.40%, Maibele is (if I recall properly ) 0.3% in the BML initial JORC.
There is a close similarity between the average assays with Maibele Ni being 0.73 (I think) and Cu 0.22%. The consultants Amur used have not included any allowance for Copper, Cobalt, Platinum or Palladium so that.... " The break even operating cutoff grade would likely be reduced with the inclusion of any payable revenues derived from the excluded by-product value derived from copper, cobalt, platinum and palladium, he added."
Maibele is so far (and before the un-released WP report changes, if any) 2.38 M/t, say 4 times less than the Amur volume, so far.
The appointed mining consultancy RPMGlobal Asia (RPM) projected all-in operating costs of $24/t of ore to deliver concentrate to the planned Ulak rail station....". At Maibele when we include all the produced elements the sale value (not the cost) is very encouraging in comparison to these Amur cost projections, remembering Cobalt must be added to the original JORC figures. This is yet another reason why the later WP report is so important to throw light on BML's position and it's potential.
I quote “Using today's nickel price of approximately $4/lb, our projected breakeven cutoff grades [at 0.29% to 0.39% nickel only] are lower than the cutoff grade at which we report Joint Ore Reserve Committee (Jorc) mineral resources,” saidAmur Minerals CEO Robin Young, adding that the mineralexploration and resource development company believed it had a highly robust resource capable of supporting a long-term operation at the current low nickel price."
The Amur report makes the point that the production cost per lb of Ni produced is "estimated at an"encouraging price tag of $1.78/lbof nickel-in-concentrate delivered to Ulak rail station, located on the Baikal Amur rail line, from the potential Kun-Manie nickel-copper sulphide project, in Russia,".... and we need to remember this is without any compensating input from the by products, and is nickel sulphide, as is Maibele. Unfortunately no mention is made of either the overburden thickness or the depth at which the ore interval lies downhole. Apart fom this it seems an interesting comparison.
