The argument you are referring to, based on my read of what transpired thereafter from your post, was whether the plant should have shut down (a subsequent section of the report to be frank). What I quoted was what Xstrata said was the reasons for the closure and the fact they could have been addressed if vanadium prices were not low. That part of the report was not doctored as you put it. So go back read the report (the sections I highlighted) because those sections were the testimony of Xstrata so I stand by my post. Now, as for others, in the other thread there was a question around achieving 99.5%, well Xstrata did, just that they put in place the wrong technology which I suspect will be addressed. So as I said, I quoted the views of Xstrata - direct by the way. Anyway, lets see what happens.
What Xstrata argued was that the mine was not closed because it wanted to price gouge South Africa, but PMA argued that if Xstrata had spent the capex, even at those current vanadium prices at that time, the mine would not have closed down and Xstrata would make money still, whilst Xstrata said no it would not be profitable to spend that capex at those low prices (i.e. the tainted part in the report, but not the initial commentary I was quoting).
Refer below, but also from further reasearcg Xstrata didn't take anyone to court thereafter meaning and you decide what that means, since Glencore are not the greatest company in paying tax and therefore if they felt they could win they would have taken them to court. hence the cloud still over whether Xstrata could have saved the mine, but I accepted there views for closure in the sections of the report they are directly quoted as saying the reasons and feel with the right tech, and that means power specs so not sure why talking gas prices either because the issue with power costs at the mine was wrong configeration according to Xstrata all will be good there, so just correcting your wild assertions here around it will never be profitable.
The other thing to note, if Xstrata felt aggrieved when they settled why settle, they could have challenged PMA back in court in 2005 rather than settling - it is what Glencore does usually when people want money from them.
As I said the issue around fines, impact onmetallurgical seperation I suspect will be addressed in teh PFS so lets see what happens, noting te AVL resourec is three times the grade of Windumurra in any event (based on my own understanding so happy to be corrected)
https://www.smh.com.au/news/Busines...le-with-Xstrata/2005/04/22/1114152325066.html
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...fdeddccae?sv=5a54e28b0f9e00dce202906c553e3e1e
http://www.news.com.au/finance/swis...m/news-story/5d818f126cabda97545263e46a25261d
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
