Chatham Rock Phosphate - CRP

[NT001]

CRP continue to issue information supporting their case - pity this wasn't available for the DMC hearing. Or maybe they did give some preliminary results.

https://www.nzx.com/companies/CRP/announcements/258904

[winner69]

Doesn't look like the champagne will be flowing before Christmas ...for me no news is good news

[BFG]

Doesn't look like the champagne will be flowing before Christmas ...for me no news is good news

Was a bit of a far flung hope after the final speeches! I like the fact that they have measurably demonstrated that Chatham phosphate is better than super or even imports. How do the Greenies expect to refute this one? To date I have yet to see them put up a single number (as usual with naysayers; all rhetoric and unsubstantiated venom).

[Baa_Baa]

... snip ... Chatham phosphate is better than super or even imports ... snip

Am I reading this incorrectly ... "The trial found the Chatham phosphate delivered on average 85% of the productivity of low-sulphur triple superphosphate."... my take is that that is 15% less productive, from the trials?

[MAC]

Hi Baa Baa,

I reckon it’s actually all very promising as the production of triple super phosphate is a very expensive chemical manufacturing process, and thus such products retail at a much higher price point than say the direct application phosphate presently imported into NZ from Morocco.

The CRP product requires relatively very little processing, it’s sucked from the ocean and just crushed, yet it may demand a relatively high price point. Thus, the gross margins could be quite extraordinary.

In addition, the CRP product may yet be deemed as ‘organic’ which may also provide a marketing advantage over chemically processed triple super phosphate.

There are a spectrum of phosphate products in the market. The Balance Agri-nutrients price list offers a feel for where the CRP product would sit.

Balance retail their triple super phosphate at $820 per tonne.

http://www.ballance.co.nz/Our-Products/PriceListing

https://www.nzx.com/files/attachments/205596.pdf

kind regards, Mac

[Daytr]

I would be very surprised if this got consent to proceed.
The difficulty is that there is so little known about the environment that is being disturbed & its impact on marine life etc.
This is also what TTR ran into & why underwater mining is problematic.
1) Lack of knowledge & understanding of what is being disturbed or potentially destroyed.
2) Lack of understanding of the life cycle of marine life & how things like sediment & noise pollution actually impact marine life.
3) Containment of waste and disturbance is impossible underwater.

[NT001]

No Baa Baa, triple superphosphate is a relatively highly processed product, so if raw Chatham rock phosphate can achieve 85% of what triple super achieves that's pretty impressive. Super is widely used on NZ farms but is part of the cause of nutrient runoff as it doesn't stay fixed in the soil. For a technical explanation:

Superphosphate is manufactured by reacting insoluble phosphate rock with sulfuric acid to form a mixture of soluble mono-calcium phosphate and calcium sulphate (approximately 9% phosphorous).In many other parts of the world it is more cost effective to use triple superphosphate fertiliser. In this process phosphate rock is reacted with phosphoric acid to produce a product with 21% phosphorous. However, this product does not contain sulfur whereas superphosphate contains 13% sulphur. In many parts of the world areas of sulfur deficiency are showing up, and there is a trend back to single superphosphate.

[Baa_Baa]

Thanks MAC.

So I read it correctly then(?), based solely on those test results, Super has a 15% performance advantage, ergo one requires 15% more CRP by volume, to equal the performance of Super?

If that flowed through to pricing, not taking into account relative production costs, CRP would have to retail 1.15 tonnes at $820 per tonne, to match the price/performance offered by Ballance for their Super.

Your points are well taken, I guess it all becomes clearer when one can factor in the relative mining & production costs, vis a vis the competitors products, and as you point out a possible green advantage.

Of course a permit would be handy as well.

[Baa_Baa]

No Baa Baa, triple superphosphate is a relatively highly processed product, so if raw Chatham rock phosphate can achieve 85% of what triple super achieves that's pretty impressive. Super is widely used on NZ farms but is part of the cause of nutrient runoff as it doesn't stay fixed in the soil. For a technical explanation:
snip

Thanks NT, so in order for CRP to achieve the same performance as the highly processed Super, then CRP would have to be refined in some way as well? ... Or use 15% more of CRP, with the trade off being no refining costs hence potentially a cheaper alternative to Super.

[MAC]

Yes, a process diagram like the one attached provides a good feel I find.

The CRP product is simply just crushed phosphate ore. A similar sized TSP operation would require a multimillion dollar investment in a large scale processing plant, so CRP thus do not incur the cost of such a plant or the operation costs.

Attachment 6602