SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Fortune Minerals Limited (TSE - FT)
FT 8.0000.0%Dec 31 4:00 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (569)6/10/2001 6:00:22 PM
From: Dave R. Webb  Read Replies (1) of 612
 
Good points Elizabeth. We need to see what the cost structure at Nico is going to be like prior to expressing a view (on production costs). Competitors will produce down to, and occassionaly below cash costs, so we need to know cap costs, plus separately, op costs.

Your view that Nico's grade is too low, and that its location means it will be high cost is your view, in comparison to what you understand. I suspect that infrastructure is going to consititute a large part of the cap costs. We have been led to believe that the power costs (a major component of any cap cost) at Nico is going to be lower than that required for Voisey's Bay. We've also been told that the relatively high gold grades at Nico will reduce the over all costs of operations.

Until we see the numbers, we don't know. From what we do know, some assumptions (such as high cap costs at Nico) might not be correct. Plus, we're being led to believe that the shallow, outcroping configuration of the mineralization at Nico will lead to reduced operating costs. I guess we'll have to wait to see the numbers.

Dave
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext