Interesting that they sped up the IPO after the CNP acquisition. It may seem, in my opinion, a good business move to aquire the Console prospects in order to add weight to the company's Alaskan holdings. Possibly nothing more will happen here than a lot more drill cores to prove that there is a lot of coal, (a given) and thus becomes part of Riversdale's proven resources, encouraging investment. There are huge hurdles in developing an actual working mine here. Is it possible that their target is directed at marketing Alaskan holdings and the eventual flip of such?
Perhaps the Alaska deal is under the more negative pressure than it seems and Crowsnest is a better bet for them. The original IPO was to be for the Alaska property for $20 million for an additional 20 million shares( $1.00/share) to add to the 66+ million shares outstanding for Riversdale. With the Crowsnest leases in the picture, the new IPO is for $63.3 million or 66.3 million additional shares. This would make for about 130 million total shares. Is this a lot for such a company? They also have Austrailian assets.
So if they can get this money now while the markets are good, they'll have money to pay for and advance the Crowsnest leases and to continue on with Alaska. If Riversdale is serious about development then its a long haul, if they want to flip the properties then they'll move on to the next game.
Riversdale principals have a proven track record and know how to use OPM (Other People's Money), and appear serious so a few bumps in the road won't affect them. It looks like they are in it for the long haul. Good luck to them.
This is a private company which plans on issuing additional shares via IPO. Now the hypothetical side. Let us pretend that existing shares were issued at $.01. Through this initial public offering the revenue ($63 million) raises the original stock value significantly, thus making the original holders one heck of a lot of money. They still retain controlling interest (about 70%). Thus the reason for exploration and promotion as this creates excitement and possibly the realisation of increased investment value.
At Coal Mountain: "Raw coal is trucked to the breaker, which breaks up the larger coal pieces and removes any large rock fragments. The raw coal is then conveyed to the wash plant where it is cleaned. Fine rock particles are removed from the coal using gravity and flotation techniques.
The waste rock that is removed from the coal is either trucked to refuse dumps or sent to a tailings pond. The washed coal is then sent to the dryer to bring the moisture content down to product specifications. Once the coal is clean and has been dried, it is then conveyed to storage areas and loaded onto unit trains." They can handle mile-long trains on their spur.
Coal Mountain is a 60km drive from Grassy.
Riversdale could duplicate the processing plant, tailings pond, waste dump and rail spur closer but it would take years and cost more than the "moderate upfront capital" the mention in their press release. They would have to truck it 20km anyway.
Sound crazy to haul coal to Coal Mountain?
This would leave just the mining operation at Grassy. As I've mentioned, this might not have much property tax assessment, since municipalities can only tax the value of the surface land (not the subsurface minerals). I don't think strip mines have much expensive fixed installations that would be taxable. So the grass-hugging Ranchlanders might not be too keen on this.
That's where Bruce's annexation plan comes in.
CNP will reap the benefits of "materials moving through the community" (Gallant).
Unless your dad owns CP Rail and is willing to haul your raw coal for free, which,(processesed) pushing the limit, may be worth $300 PMT. Then there is the also the possibiity of strings of Caterpillar 797B haul trucks rumbling down Hwy 3 towards Coal Moutain. Forget the economics of the inherent diesel fuel consumption and road damage... I find that these things are really a bitch to pass.
My point in the above post is, Coal Mountain is apparently being phased out over the next few years, so their crushing, washing, storage and rail terminal facilities will be surplus (currently has 1M ton/yr surplus capacity). At the same time this new mine is starting up and will need all this stuff.
If they want to get production quickly with "moderate upfront capital", just truck raw coal from Grassy to Coal Mountain. Coal is trucked longer distances on highways in USA and China.
Seems to me it could be a good deal for Teck, unless they have other plans for the facilities.
Coal Mountain is not being phased out the area they are presently mining in will be exhausted, then they will be switching to a different area.
Also trucking material is very expensive especially when you are shipping unprocessed raw coal. Small loads you would be lucky if you got 30-35 tonnes on a super B.
Back to the post of 3;48. It was your quote that mentioned the "moderate upfront capital".
Are you now starting to put together a few of the puzzle pieces as to what may be truly going on here? You bring up the point of a 120km round trip. Not even to mention that the canyon is narrow and the road bed not engineered to support the weight for this type of vehicle. The two provincial goverments are not going to invest millions per kilometer to faciitate funds for a private venture, such a this, when they can't even get their own act together to twin a hiway. A haul truck box would span even further than shoulder to shoulder. By design these trucks can never share the roads with conventional hiway traffic.
I don't think that any of the above issues, or those of product transportation are of a concern to Riversdale.
"Also trucking material is very expensive especially when you are shipping unprocessed raw coal. Small loads you would be lucky if you got 30-35 tonnes on a super B"
Just really rough numbers concerning usage of Super B's...
- a Super B can carry just over 30 tonnes (that is processed, much lighter material) of coal. - a one mine long coal unit train contains approx. 131 rail cars with a capacity of aprrox 110 tonnes -A coal unit train is transporting in excess of 144,000 tonnes. -to send one of these trains away bi-weekly would require far in excess of 50(125?) incoming trips of unprocessed coal a day resulting in a potential 3 million tonnes/yr production.
Just rough math and please feel to correct the numbers. Is this a realistic option?
Should this mine come to life the access and delivery of processed material will likely come through our municipality and loaded on CP rail near our community, so why not show an interest.
We are very interested, Emile. Tell us ALL you know.
Generally speaking this mine is a good thing. The details will all have to be worked out and not everyone will be happy (nimby). Realisticly though, I think you are looking at at least 10 years before you could have an active mine. I do not see Ranchlands playing nice on this one so before anything at all can happen, annexation must first happen.Probably 2-3 years for that. Then by the time the environmental studies and such are approved at least another 5 years(think about that magnite mine).Then at least a couple of years to build a plant and roads and rail loadouts etc. So, yes I think this is good news and we should work with these people(maybe a public commitee should be set up) but it is not the short term saviour to the CNP. As for councils involvement in getting this deal done, my guess would be that they REALLY had very little to do with it.And if they did I would sure like some details.
13 comments:
Did they do an IPO for the Alaska property yet?
Potential Investor
Interesting that they sped up the IPO after the CNP acquisition.
It may seem, in my opinion, a good business move to aquire the Console prospects in order to add weight to the company's Alaskan holdings. Possibly nothing more will happen here than a lot more drill cores to prove that there is a lot of coal, (a given) and thus becomes part of Riversdale's proven resources, encouraging investment.
There are huge hurdles in developing an actual working mine here.
Is it possible that their target is directed at marketing Alaskan holdings and the eventual flip of such?
Just my humble opinion.
Perhaps the Alaska deal is under the more negative pressure than it seems and Crowsnest is a better bet for them. The original IPO was to be for the Alaska property for $20 million for an additional 20 million shares( $1.00/share) to add to the 66+ million shares outstanding for Riversdale. With the Crowsnest leases in the picture, the new IPO is for $63.3 million or 66.3 million additional shares. This would make for about 130 million total shares. Is this a lot for such a company? They also have Austrailian assets.
So if they can get this money now while the markets are good, they'll have money to pay for and advance the Crowsnest leases and to continue on with Alaska. If Riversdale is serious about development then its a long haul, if they want to flip the properties then they'll move on to the next game.
Riversdale principals have a proven track record and know how to use OPM (Other People's Money), and appear serious so a few bumps in the road won't affect them. It looks like they are in it for the long haul. Good luck to them.
Jose
Stock Market 101...simplified
This is a private company which plans on issuing additional shares via IPO.
Now the hypothetical side. Let us pretend that existing shares were issued at $.01. Through this initial public offering the revenue ($63 million) raises the original stock value significantly, thus making the original holders one heck of a lot of money. They still retain controlling interest (about 70%). Thus the reason for exploration and promotion as this creates excitement and possibly the realisation of increased investment value.
Coal Mountain is Teck's smallest mine with 6 years left, production of 2.5 million tons/yr and processing capacity for 3.5 .
At Coal Mountain:
"Raw coal is trucked to the breaker, which breaks up the larger coal pieces and removes any large rock fragments. The raw coal is then conveyed to the wash plant where it is cleaned. Fine rock particles are removed from the coal using gravity and flotation techniques.
The waste rock that is removed from the coal is either trucked to refuse dumps or sent to a tailings pond. The washed coal is then sent to the dryer to bring the moisture content down to product specifications. Once the coal is clean and has been dried, it is then conveyed to storage areas and loaded onto unit trains."
They can handle mile-long trains on their spur.
Coal Mountain is a 60km drive from Grassy.
Riversdale could duplicate the processing plant, tailings pond, waste dump and rail spur closer but it would take years and cost more than the "moderate upfront capital" the mention in their press release. They would have to truck it 20km anyway.
Sound crazy to haul coal to Coal Mountain?
This would leave just the mining operation at Grassy. As I've mentioned, this might not have much property tax assessment, since municipalities can only tax the value of the surface land (not the subsurface minerals). I don't think strip mines have much expensive fixed installations that would be taxable. So the grass-hugging Ranchlanders might not be too keen on this.
That's where Bruce's annexation plan comes in.
CNP will reap the benefits of "materials moving through the community" (Gallant).
"Sound crazy to haul coal to Coal Mountain?"
Yup!
Unless your dad owns CP Rail and is willing to haul your raw coal for free, which,(processesed) pushing the limit, may be worth $300 PMT.
Then there is the also the possibiity of strings of Caterpillar 797B haul trucks rumbling down Hwy 3 towards Coal Moutain. Forget the economics of the inherent diesel fuel consumption and road damage... I find that these things are really a bitch to pass.
Anon 8:21 wrote:
"Caterpillar 797B haul trucks rumbling down Hwy 3 towards Coal Moutain."
It would be trucks like these.
My point in the above post is, Coal Mountain is apparently being phased out over the next few years, so their crushing, washing, storage and rail terminal facilities will be surplus (currently has 1M ton/yr surplus capacity). At the same time this new mine is starting up and will need all this stuff.
If they want to get production quickly with "moderate upfront capital", just truck raw coal from Grassy to Coal Mountain. Coal is trucked longer distances on highways in USA and China.
Seems to me it could be a good deal for Teck, unless they have other plans for the facilities.
Coal Mountain is not being phased out the area they are presently mining in will be exhausted, then they will be switching to a different area.
Also trucking material is very expensive especially when you are shipping unprocessed raw coal. Small loads you would be lucky if you got 30-35 tonnes on a super B.
2;43,
Back to the post of 3;48. It was your quote that mentioned the "moderate upfront capital".
Are you now starting to put together a few of the puzzle pieces as to what may be truly going on here?
You bring up the point of a 120km round trip. Not even to mention that the canyon is narrow and the road bed not engineered to support the weight for this type of vehicle. The two provincial goverments are not going to invest millions per kilometer to faciitate funds for a private venture, such a this, when they can't even get their own act together to twin a hiway.
A haul truck box would span even further than shoulder to shoulder.
By design these trucks can never share the roads with conventional hiway traffic.
I don't think that any of the above issues, or those of product transportation are of a concern to Riversdale.
"Also trucking material is very expensive especially when you are shipping unprocessed raw coal. Small loads you would be lucky if you got 30-35 tonnes on a super B"
Just really rough numbers concerning usage of Super B's...
- a Super B can carry just over 30 tonnes (that is processed, much lighter material) of coal.
- a one mine long coal unit train contains approx. 131 rail cars with a capacity of aprrox 110 tonnes
-A coal unit train is transporting in excess of 144,000 tonnes.
-to send one of these trains away bi-weekly would require far in excess of 50(125?) incoming trips of unprocessed coal a day resulting in a potential 3 million tonnes/yr production.
Just rough math and please feel to correct the numbers. Is this a realistic option?
Crowsnest Pass Home said...
"Coal Mountain is not being phased out the area they are presently mining in will be exhausted, then they will be switching to a different area."
That seems to shoot down my theory so the possibilities are:
1) Railspur to Grassy with processing there, no trucking.
2) Rail access and processing somewhere else, truck raw coal from Grassy.
3) Process at Grassy, truck processed coal to rail access.
Am I missing anything? Where could the rail access go - I think they would need two miles of track to load unit trains?
Another driblet of information from Emile's blog:
Should this mine come to life the access and delivery of processed material will likely come through our municipality and loaded on CP rail near our community, so why not show an interest.
We are very interested, Emile. Tell us ALL you know.
Generally speaking this mine is a good thing. The details will all have to be worked out and not everyone will be happy (nimby).
Realisticly though, I think you are looking at at least 10 years before you could have an active mine.
I do not see Ranchlands playing nice on this one so before anything at all can happen, annexation must first happen.Probably 2-3 years for that. Then by the time the environmental studies and such are approved at least another 5 years(think about that magnite mine).Then at least a couple of years to build a plant and roads and rail loadouts etc.
So, yes I think this is good news and we should work with these people(maybe a public commitee should be set up) but it is not the short term saviour to the CNP.
As for councils involvement in getting this deal done, my guess would be that they REALLY had very little to do with it.And if they did I would sure like some details.
Post a Comment