Dialogue with Mike Macleod. I took it upon myself to contact Mike today to try to flesh out things a bit with regards to the EMD/CMD circuit and how/if it could/would be incorporated in the 'feasibility' study.
In my recent communications with Mike Macleod,Larry Reaugh and Al Korelin (which led to the Korelin interview of Larry Reaugh the other day) ... I was coming to a scenario that might unfold with regards to a strategic partner on the battery side of things providing funds to get the battery side flowsheet developed in a fast track of sorts in order to be incorporated in the feasibility study.
The following is my dialogue with Mike today. You will see that things were narrowed to mutual understanding. Both Mike and I were sure to be understanding of what each was saying.
My style of writing may not be the clearest ... but take all effort to make sure the question is understood and that I understand the answer given.
You have to read from bottom up.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for helping me understand, XXXXXXX.
Can an EMD/CMD circuit be included with and EMM circuit in a feasibility study? Yes, provided the level of technical work is comparable. Doing another preliminary feasibility study is not required for incorporation.
Regards
Michael MacLeod
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:24 PM
To: Mike Macleod
Subject: Re: RE: RE: Battery powder results.
Thanks Mike.
After reading your response, I think I wasn't clear in what I was asking.
The company is currently at the stage of moving forward from where the PFS ended and into the 'feasibility' stage of the EMM production mine plan if I'm not mistaken in that assessment. The recommendations TetraTech put in the PFS would be acted upon in the 'feasibility' stage if I am correct.
I'm not wondering whether the current stage of the EMD/CMD work is enough to add to the PFS work or even if the successful conclusion of this work would be attached to the PFS already completed.
Being that the company is at the 'feasibility' stage on EMM ... my question pertains to the inclusion of the EMD/CMD work (upon it's successful conclusion , inclusive of economic parameters) into the 43-101 qualified 'feasibiliy' report on the EMM side of things.
Meaning, would it be included in the 'feasibility' report , or , would a new PFS have to be commissioned on the EMD/CMD circuit before it could be combined into a feasibility report of EMM/EMD/CMD mine plan.
Hope that makes the enquiry clearer. I'm not looking for a speculative answer from you, simply a scenario in which the battery side of things could be included in the mineplan going forward into feasibilty.
Thanks for your help.
XXXXXXXX
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Macleod <macleod@amymn.com>
Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 11:32 am
Subject: RE: RE: Battery powder results.
To: XXXXXXXXXX
Cc: Larry Reaugh <lreaugh@americanmanganeseinc.com>, "Larry Reaugh (lreaugh@shaw.ca)" <lreaugh@shaw.ca>, "Norman Chow (nchow@kemetco.com)" <nchow@kemetco.com>, "Anca Nacu (anacu@kemetco.com)" <anacu@kemetco.com>
> XXXXXX, I am not sure where you are going with this line of inquiry.
>
> As I have said, a lot more test work must be performed so that
> the best potential commercial process can be scaled-up for field
> testing. Then an accurate process flow sheet can be built
> which could be used for operating and capital cost estimating
> purposes; leading to financial evaluation, and preparation and
> publication of a complete NI 43-101 compliant Technical Report.
>
> Under current regulatory regime, it would be neither acceptable
> nor correct to try to cobble an un-proven conceptual process on
> to the existing Technical Report and disseminate that new
> document to the public. Such an approach could be
> construed as potentially misleading.
>
> I am not in a position to speculate nor comment on the
> priorities of the industry groups that have approached us.
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Regards
>
> Michael MacLeod
>
> From: XXXXXXXXXX
> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 10:26 AM
> To: Mike Macleod
> Subject: Re: RE: Battery powder results.
>
> Thanks Mike.
>
> One more line of question for you on todays release content.
>
> Is it fair for an investor to conclude that the aggressive
> nature in the way the company is pushing ahead on the battery
> powder program and the current discussions on-going with battery
> industry people, that the company is positioning itself to have
> the EMD/CMD production flowsheet developed to the point that it
> would be incorporated into the feasibility study based on
> TetraTechs assessments in the PFS?
>
> If so, could an investor then be better understanding of the
> high level of interest these battery industry people are
> currently placing on the company and the Artillery Peak project?
>
> A few weeks ago you mentioned possible priorities these players
> might apply to the program if a deal were to be concluded. I
> take it that having a comprehensive mineplan that has a
> developed EMD/CMD circuit included would be of their highest
> priority if they were to provide funds to move the program
> forward at this stage.
>
> The powder results were very good and cleaning up the variables
> further would certainly make the companies product of a world
> class quality.
>
> Thanks again and hope you can add a few words with regards to
> these questions.
>
> XXXXXXX
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mike Macleod <macleod@amymn.com>
> Date: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:45 am
> Subject: RE: Battery powder results.
> To: XXXXXXXXXXXX
> Cc: Larry Reaugh <lreaugh@americanmanganeseinc.com>, "Larry
> Reaugh (lreaugh@shaw.ca)" <lreaugh@shaw.ca>, "Norman Chow
> (nchow@kemetco.com)" <nchow@kemetco.com>, "Anca Nacu
> (anacu@kemetco.com)" <anacu@kemetco.com>
>
> > Thank you for your continued interest in American Manganese
> > Inc., xxxxxx, and its Artillery peak Project. Going forward,
> > we plan to look at up-stream purification options to reduce
> > impurity levels ahead of carbonate precipitation and test
> > various oxidants to improve finished product quality. As
> > stated previously, we hope to complete this initial phase of
> > testing by year end.
> >
> > Thank you for your consideration.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Michael MacLeod
> > Chief Operating Officer
> >
> > From:XXXXXXXXXX Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:20 AM
> > To: Mike Macleod
> > Subject: Battery powder results.
> >
> > Hi Mike.
> >
> > Look like very good results from Kemetco on the powders. Can you
> > give guidance on what the next steps are in that program?
> >
> > It looks to me that the low iron content in our samples is a
> > huge advantage, however, I'm wondering about the other variables.
> >
> > Aluminum,Calcium,Potassium, Titanium, Zinc. Are these variables
> > requiring removal/separation in order to meet the Tosoh and
> > Tronox criteria or are they not as much the problem as Iron is
> > known to be?
> >
> > If the removal of them is required and Norman can do it fairly
> > easily, our product would be unmatched.
> >
> > Thanks, XXXXXXX
> >
>