Jpthoma1:
I see you offering my (a wee bit out of context) quote in several posts, but i will only reply once, I think:
Without CAPEX, it's impossible to evaluate cost of mining.
In concrete terms, yes.
VAUGHN suggested that doubling the Ekati rate of mining is possible, but at what cost? Doubling CAPEX? According to me, it's impossible to find cost per ton, if you don't have CAPEX.
Anyone who has ever built anything, or bought something from the corner grocer, will tell you that doubling the size does not double the cost. If it does, something is very wrong.
It might be a worthwhile exercise to compare Nanisivik's costs with a more southerly, similar operation.
I am surprized that Valuepro has not already told you that comparing apple and oranges is «stupid» as he told me when I compared Torngat to Raglan!!!!! Why not compare with a South African mine, as he strongly suggested to me. ;o)
Nanisivik is a coastal operation, as would be Jackson Inlet.
Raglan? OK. Let's go for it. The concentrate is trucked to Deception Bay after all. The mine processed nearly one million tonnes of ore, and produced 24,000 tonnes of copper with an operting cost of $1.16 (U.S.) per pound. That's 52.8 million pounds of copper, all of which works out to about $100 (Canadian) per tonne of ore. That compares to the $65 (Canadian) per tonne that Sudbury seems to have run at. (Source: FL Annual Report)
That's not so bad. Raglan runs at about 3,000 TPD, much less than what Vaughn suggested for Jackson Inlet. As well, some of Raglan's mining is underground.
Anybody trying to speculate on the cost of mining and the profitability of mining at Jackson Inlet without evaluating CAPEX, cost of financing, and return on capital is just speculating (I would even say dreaming!). ;o))
Dreaming, I hope not. Speculating? Absolutely. How else would you expect a potential investor to come up with a reasonable guess as to what minimum value would be required? |
