Usually, the cost of mining a deposit is function of the rate of mining which is dependant on the capex, the later being the result of optimizing the return function (usually choose the mining method and rate giving the best ROC).
That is precisely what we have been saying.
According to you, what will be the capex up there and the return on capital?
I have not a clue. It's still a very hypothetical question, as I'm not at all sure that it will need to be answered. In the event that the results are good enough to start worrying about that, then the next question is how big a mine would be. Let's wait for the sample results, first?
What I would say, is that the capital cost for any given mine should be less than the costs would be at Lac de Gras, assuming that everything can be shipped to a spot very close to a proposed mine at Jackson Inlet. If not, then that changes everything.
It might be a worthwhile exercise to compare Nanisivik's costs with a more southerly, similar operation.
Cash flow per share or EPS if you use the later, is function of the number of shares outstanding.
Umm, that's what the "per share" or "PS" implies, yes.
How will be finance the developpement of this project?
Again, you're way ahead of yourself. However, I believe that Vaughn's post implied bringing in a major, leaving TWG with a 40-per-cent interest. I don't believe that TWG could pay for a mine on its own. |
