RE:RE:RE:CME PEAHistorical resources are what they are : historical, not NI-43-101 compliant and thus with no economic value for investors/pea/feasibility studies whatsoerver.
3.5million tons for a minimum of 35years of production ? you are kidding right ?
once CME decides what they want really to produce (silicon metal or ferroscilicon, you know corollas or ferraris), it seems now hey are after silicon metal market (if they dont change AGAIN their mind in the feasibility study), for each tonne of silicon metal you need 3 tonnes of silica feedstock, AND NOT JUST 98.5% SILICA FEEDSTOCK, the higher the purity of the feedstock the higher the yield/puirty/lower cost your silicon metal would be produced. better start with 99.00%+ silica to produce 98.5% silicon metal. if you start with 98.5% silica (more suitable for ferrosilicon) good luck with your costs of production.
if we assume using 98.5% silica to produce silicon metal, for 50.000tpa silicon metal you need annually 150.000 of lump silica materal, its not 35years of feedstock material, its only 8 years of feedstock you have assuming your silica deposit has 35% of lump material (1million silica lumps at 98.5% out of 3.5million silica)
polo11 wrote: ""Capex : 303million$ (VS most probably less than 50M$ for RRS)
Measured Resource : 3.5million tons at 98.5% purity silica (VS most probably more than 20million tons for RRS) ""
Capex is included in the NPV calculation
As the 3.5m tons is the meseared resource and they have enought for minimum 35 year production.
A s this charetrization report - htey have historicly around 28M tons.
https://www.canadianmetalsinc.com/DATA/DOCUMENT/19_en~v~characterization-study-of-the-langis-silica-deposit-december-2013.pdf
Remember that Langis quarry was in operation for more than 10 years and all infrastructure to acces are already in place - see picture in the report
Why spend millions of dollars to define more whe you have more that what you need?