In the June 28, news release we can read that similar CMR studies are underway:
- “This CMR project, and other similar projects in development, have…”
- “… currently pursuing CMR opportunities with various copper industry groups…”
There are two possible approaches they could have taken:
- Sequential;
- Non-consecutive (=simultaneous)
The fact that SCY and their (copper industry) partners seem to have taken a non-consecutive CMR approach tells me a lot about their confidence in the outcomes. Here’s why.
If they had some (or reasonable) doubts about either the do ability or the profitability of CRM they would have taken a more sequential approach: they would first try to demonstrate feasibility at a particular site – and only after it being confirmed – they would move on to the next CMR project (or projects, probably in a non-consecutive order). This way they would save a lot of money, time and efforts. But this seems to be not their strategy...
They approach the CMR strategy in a non-consecutive order, which tells me:
CMR is doable and is profitable, without any doubts. WD has already figured this out, in a convincing way.
Why they call this a ‘feasibility program’ (like in DFS) has more to do with detailing plans – things you need to specify in detail in order to be able to build the CRM-recovery plant (and the refinery).
I would not be surprised it we soon learn about these other CMR/HPA projects...