Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Alabama Graphite Corp. Com ABGPF



GREY:ABGPF - Post by User

Comment by nino9on Dec 31, 2017 5:10pm
176 Views
Post# 27255288

RE:RE:Realist2018

RE:RE:Realist2018

You bring up valuable points, but also points we have different opinions over maybe due too different professions. Yours could be in the financial or general mining side, mine is mining and mainly in the mineral processing side in the upgrading of ores and minerals.

As I stated before, in the case of Alabama mining the Coosa project the mine grade is unimportant with a high priced end product as CSPG. The mine grade is mainly a financial factor. The general rule is the higher the mine grade the lower the operating cost. However the higher capital requirement to start this high grade mine partly offsets this benefit. Several mines with higher grades than Coosa will produce similar priced concentrates. Even if their products fetch a multiple of the $1,550 Coosa receives, the margin between $9,000 and $1,550 is such that it can withstand the lower mine grade and consequently the grade is unimportant.

The mine ore characteristics are far more important, the host rock where it is formed and the accessory minerals. No two mines are exactly the same in that respect. Consequently no two end products (graphite concentrate) of two different mines have exactly the same properties. Here the function of testing becomes important.

Alabama sent out samples to be tested by approximately 30 entities, US DoD’s amongst them.  The samples are based on the Coosa concentrate as source material. If they decide to purchase concentrate from another graphite mine it could be that the purified CSPG has other properties than the tested samples. It means that all testing has to be redone which is very time consuming and a waste of time and money already invested. It means that it is almost mandatory to continue with the Coosa project.

If DoD’s will be amongst the future customers they will probably stipulate that the graphite as source material is secured and produced in the US.

Apart from all the other benefits, such as all year production due too climate conditions, mining friendly Alabama, lower transportation cost etc.etc., I can not see another solution than the Coosa project for Westwater. But ultimately Westwater decides, we can only give opinions.

Rest me to wish all a Happy New Year with hopefully an optimistic Westwater report promised in the middle of January.


<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>