Jump to content



Recommended Posts

In reply to: Knotawurri on Tuesday 15/02/05 03:17pm

Hi knota,


I don't recall ever knocking you personally - pardon the pun!


As for the numbers game, I have had for some time now an excel based model that forecasts cmq's p&l and cash flow out to 2010 and I update it every time new information comes to hand.


I don't discuss my valuations because as you yourself pointed out they are meaningless atm, the fact that I have documented all my assumptions notwithstanding.


I also think that such comment is dangerous for the newer investors that may read this board. And let us not forget that cmq may not even make it - in any form!


For the record however knota, my eps cacl is vastly different from yours even if I assume a capacity of 3600tn by 2010 and the same reduction is capital cost (I don't know where you got that from). My most ambitious forecast of capacity is actually only 850tn by 2010 ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“ naturally as more info comes to hand I will revise this, however for now I think anything beyond this figure is just to optimistic.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

QUOTE (k9_ @ Tuesday 15/02/05 07:46pm)

Hi K9 & Knotta,

Good on both of you to have the foresight and faith to forecast up to 2010. As for less risk- adversed investors like me, we like to see CMQ achieves the unconditional APVMA license by 31 May and the 40,000L of sales before considering investing. Some more conservative investors may even wait longer until the company turns a profit. I acknowledge that many posters here think that of these are ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¹ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“sure thingsÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ but the market does have its doubts as reflected in the current sp. Yes, admittedly the sp will move higher with the achievement of each milestone. It is a matter of risks v rewards. Some like BSA view paying a higher sp as ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã¢â‚¬Å“insurance moneyÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ÂÂ. There is no right or wrong ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“ each investor should invest or not invest to suit the investorÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s overall share portfolio strategy.

Having said this, I read with interest MarniceÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s posting on ozeshare forum which I believe contained important information pertaining to the obtaining of the APVMA license.

Quoting Marnice from ozeshare:
Regarding the batch testing for APVMA licence, the Veterinary Guidelines on the www.apvma.gov.au website (Part 2 Chemistry and Manufacture) states the following:
"Where there is any doubt about the quality of the active constituent (e.g. the manufacturer of the material and /or their history of reliability are not known, or a valid certificate of analysis is not available), an acceptance testing schedule, comprising analysis of at least three batches of active constituent initially, with follow-up random testing on an occasional basis, may be required to check the reliability of the supplier or the certificates of analysis."
I'm not even sure I'm looking at the right information here, but it seems that even if the three (consecutive as u stated on ss) batches are accepted, then additional random tests may be required...we are all in the dark here as to how far along the testing schedule CMQ are...


Reading the above together with JessÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s postings put doubts on the achievement of the APVMA license by 31 May. It will be good to obtain the knowledge/views from posters who know the licensing process and what CMQ is doing. The satisfaction of this license covenant is crucial to the term agreement and therefore will fundamentally affect the future.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: brunosch on Wednesday 16/02/05 12:29am

I agree with you completely bruno. It is in my nature to do the numbers and as I stated is no reflection of my confidence in cmq's future.


There are some very significant milestones ahead of cmq and they now come with an expiry date - I think that nothing is a given or a 'sure thing'. From dr GM actions I can only assume that he thinks it is a sure thing otherwise why agree to a deadline that you could never meet!


On the APVMA licence - have a read of the letter to shareholders released on the 22/12/2004 there may just be a clue in there about the filtration issue and the licence approval. The letter states the goals for 2005 are:


- Manufacture commercial batches of CHEMEQ

- Finalise the unconditional APVMA licence

- Complete plant optimisation


Later it goes on to say:

Importantly, the short term problem in plant optimisation does not change...


This suggest that by plant optimisation they are referring to the filtration problem and may also suggest that they expect to get the unconditional licence before fixing the filtration problem.


I do acknowledge that they don't clarify what a commercial batch is and that I have always assumed that the filtration problem would have to be fixed prior to the granting of the unconditional licence - now am not so sure..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11million burnt in 7months. Report just out.


How long will the 9million last them?



Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: Knotawurri on Tuesday 15/02/05 03:17pm



First the arithmetic: I think steeler, with his love of noughts, has meddled with your sales figures and slipped in an extra one. Should be $1,800,000,000. Fortunately, he seems to have done that after you finished the calc because $12 dividend seems correct (on your assumptions). I can't see any other arithmetic errors but must insist that the market capitalisation is only $45,000,000,000 and three pence, reducing your consulting fee as a result of the accident with the nought.


As for the assumptions: the $9bn total market assumes that not a single pig or chicken on the planet escapes its dose of chemeq, which obviously won't happen. I see chemeq sales being driven by 1) producer's profits, 2) banning antibiotics. Accepting CMQ's growth figures, extra profits (using chemeq cf using nothing) can only be achieved (at $600k-$1m/t) if the price of meat is above a threshold (somewhere between $1-$2/kg as I recall). I take that to mean an income threshold, where it gets too hard to calculate even roughly (what will be the cost of chicken meat in China and India in 2010?): but definitely affluent countries currently are well above it, and producers will make extra profit using chemeq. The other issue is banning antibiotics. In many parts of the world this is not a burning issue since antibiotics are not available anyway. Again, it's the affluent world where this will (at best) be a serious issue. My guess, based on consumption figures, is that the total potential market for chemeq is more like $3bn. Using your other figures, this reduces market cap to $15bn and one penny. But I think your P/E is too high at 25 as well. This is appropriate in a strongly growing company but the CMQ you are describing has reached it's full potential. There will still be growth opportunities (spread of affluence, move into human pharmaceuticals) but I think these will be growth not much better than market averages; so I would halve your P/E giving mcap of $8bn and a hapenny. But in the market I'm describing, and assuming antiobiotics in feed are banned as soon an alternative is available, market penetration could be considerably more than the 40% you assume. If you are prepared to accept a figure like 80% (all large producers) mcap is back to $15bn, or $100/share. Dividend $8/share (100% payout ratio).


Or, instead of this best possible scenario we might have, on alternative and quite plausible assumptions known to all followers of CMQ (and my broker): mcap three pence hapenny (assumes you take over the shell of the company for nothing, the accident with the nought has been forgotten by the wider public, and you run it successfully as a consultancy at your current rate), dividends $0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: sabretoothed on Wednesday 16/02/05 11:31am


On 22 December 2004, Melrose said: ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’‚¹ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“Chemeq is in a strong financial position with $13.8 million in cash as at 30 November 2004. This gives sufficient working capital until 30 June 2005.ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢Shortly after that, he signed the Mizuho agreement!


On 22 December Melrose should have known the December cash burn was $2.39 million and that the cash burn for the rest of the months will be more than $2 million per month without the additional expenses for solving the filtration problem. In simple language, on 22 December Melrose should know that the cash balance was about $11.4 million. Allowing $2 million per month plus the additional expenses to rectify the filtration problem means that Melrose should know that the cash will run out in May or at best early June, yet he stated that the cash will last until 30 June 2005!


The announcement today shows that the company burned $2.2 million in January with the cash balance at $9.2 million and the cash burning at $2million/month would have lasted until May 2005 and not 30 June 2005.


I am confused as to why Melrose could say that the cash will last until 30 June when he should have known that it will run out by May. Using BrunoschÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâ€Â ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ÃƒÆ’ƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¡ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’Æâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ãƒâ€¦Ã‚¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬Ãƒâ€Â¦ÃƒÆ’‚¾ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s words, was Melrose economical with the truth then?






Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: k9_ on Tuesday 15/02/05 08:46pm

Hi K9, no you have not. I just stuck your name on the end so as to reply to your post of the 11/02/05 which I had not done to that date. All that knocking garbage was just me b/s and responding to the knotatonne joke that David and I think Jess were on about.


The second half was the real story and the price per pig dose rate of $2.50 when extended out comes to $1m =1 tonne. Many moons ago 3 - 4 years sought of time CMQ ann that the dosage cost was coming down from $2.75 to $2.50 to match anti-biotic pricing which incidently when calculated out came to this equation.


I will not promise but I will endeavour to try and locate it for you. I do not believe this is a case of tell a story enough times and long enough that it become accepted as the truth and or a fact.


In regards to your comment on newer investors I did say that CMQ may not be the carrier or company that ends up owning Chemeq the product which should really alert newer investors to the fact that all is not well with CMQ. Notwithstanding this I am none the less impressed with your sensitivity on the matter. WE had better tell them not to read any comments by Steeler as he is the most positive supporter of CMQ that I know. He runs his own businesses the same way. very positive, energetic, thinks matters through. A very contagious person our Steelers. No I am not sleeping with him nor does he owe me money but maybe he does owe me a beer or two.


IN regards to CMQ I must say that those who work for the company and to whom I have spoken with, feel and sound very positive about its future. MHI would not be there if it was not except they do still get their 15 mil whatever happens.


The question that needs to be asked is will they take up their shares and options to get a share of the technology? You betchca they will.


In regards to the the 850 tonnes if they are only doing that by 2010 then all will be lost. That is nearly six years away and if they are not flying by then they will never fly. Once they have a cash flow provided from MP1 say 50 tonne Mp2 which now is going to be 400 tonne instead od 200 tonne and the cost for the 400 tonne plant has come down from $360m to $150m. That all should be in place by 2006 year's end. Then they will start to build two or three modules at once. Even at 2 per year is 9 MP's in place by 2010 which = 3600 tonnes plus the MP1 50 tonne MP1.


Enough must go.


Cheers as always Knotta.


PS I am also impressed that you have a P&L on Excel through to 2010 even though we may disagree on certain matters. Most impressed in fact. At least I achieved my objective to see if anyone had thought the process through. You certainly have done that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: Knotawurri on Wednesday 16/02/05 02:41pm

Hi knota,


in my earlier post I was asking where you got the cost to build the 400tn plant from? 360mil is the lowest estimate I have seen in the estimates provided by cmq and in all my analysis I have assumed a cost of at least 400mil (given cmq's track record). A reduction in capital cost from 360 to 150 is a very significant reduction with all sorts of ramifications - less dilution, less debt, quicker ramp-up etc...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...