On 3/21/07, Jones Beene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Terry,
On closer re-read of that paper, I see where you got that figure, but
the derivation of it makes no sense at all - the wild assumptions which
were used - and basically they seem to be doing this work to justify the
high projected dollar output of a particular mine which has a mixed REO
output now at a much lower price. This is closer to politics than
science - but isn't everything in the so-called "free market"?
Here is a government report (one you can trust ;-):
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2007/mcsapp07.pdf
The issue is the definition of "reserve base":
"Reserve Base.—That part of an identified resource that
meets specified minimum physical and chemical
criteria related to current mining and production
practices, including those for grade, quality,
thickness, and depth. The reserve base is the inplace
demonstrated (measured plus indicated)
resource from which reserves are estimated. It may
encompass those parts of the resources that have a
reasonable potential for becoming economically
available within planning horizons beyond those that
assume proven technology and current economics.
The reserve base includes those resources that are
currently economic (reserves), marginally economic
(marginal reserves), and some of those that are
currently subeconomic (subeconomic resources). The
term "geologic reserve" has been applied by others
generally to the reserve-base category, but it also
may include the inferred-reserve-base category; it is
not a part of this classification system."
So, if we're willing to pay more, there is more to be had. Current Nd
prices are about $12 per pound in m.t. lots.
Terry
