Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Inco-Voisey Bay Nickel [ T.N.V] -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: 1king who wrote (241)	5/6/1998 7:00:00 PM
From: Winer	Respond to of 1615

The Voisey's Bay Nickel company is now working on a supplement to their Environmental Impact Statement Interview with Bill Napier. Voisey's Bay Nickel Company CBC Radio - Labrador Morning Reporter: Paul Piggot Date: 98/05/05 Bill Hall: Voisey's Bay Nickel Company is now working on a supplement to their Voisey's Bay environmental impact statement. Last week a panel found that statement lacking in a few key areas. Freelance broadcaster, Paul Pigott, spoke with Voisey's Bay Nickel Vice-President Environment, Bill Napier, about the deficiency statement. Paul Pigott: Did you get anything in there that you didn't expect, Bill? Bill Napier: There was a wide cadre of issues that was brought forward and the panel, you know, looked at as many of the comments as they did and put in some. I think it's... for a project of this size they're the type of comments you usually get back. Paul Pigott: What's next for you now? Bill Napier: We're in the process of developing teams to respond to the ten areas that have been identified by the panel for information requests. We're going to take a look at each of those questions long and hard and prepare to, as well as we can, a response to those and get them out back to the panel within the next four to six weeks. Paul Pigott: What are some of the more difficult issues that you'll be facing in trying to respond to these deficiencies? Bill Napier: I guess an encouraging aspect is that there's no additional fieldwork that's going to be required for the preparation of the information request. We do have some effort to be done to ensure that we have collected all available literature, particularly where the panel's requesting us to put in context some of the biological resources and that's what we're going to be doing is making sure that we have the full complement of available literature and do an interpretation of that literature to contextualize a different matter, the project effect. Paul Pigott: What is it going to take for you to fulfill that request? What do you have to do now? Bill Napier: We have to go back and review the literature, determine what information is available and overlay that with the information we collected and our predictions with respect to project effects and provide for the panel that information that they required for us to proceed to hearings. You have to remember that it's not uncommon for an ES of this nature, of this size and of this interest to have a number of requests for additional information. And that's what the panel has essentially asked for. Paul Pigott: But obviously it's four months extra on the process. Are you disappointed you didn't get to go to public hearings? Bill Napier: Oh, I think, obviously, we would have preferred to go to public hearings with the EIS as is. However, there is that requirement for additional information. And again, you know, it's not uncommon for a project of this nature and we're in the process now of collecting that information and preparing it for the panel's consideration. Paul Pigott: If you could just describe a little bit about how that information is being gathered and how at the end of six weeks you'll have a response. Bill Napier: Well, there's a very... under each of the areas the panel has essentially given a further elaboration of what they would like to have as a consequence of the guidelines. And there's a number of specific points have been brought forward as in the marine transportation section, which we're going to comply with. The case of we provided in the EIS, for example, on a couple of items information on vessel selection and what the panel asked for is how we derived that. So we can go back and provide that information for them. Paul Pigott: I notice that they're asking for some information on alternative means to the project such as the production rate. What's that going to take? Do you have to develop a model for that or are there models in place already? Bill Napier: Well, that's sort of an internal rationalization whether it's... I think that... I don't have the information request in front of me but it's both economic and technical, so the question is going to be what technically can be the production rate and economically what can be the production rate. That's the gist of the question and that's how it will be answered. Paul Pigott: Why didn't Voisey's Bay Nickel put that in the EIS the first time around? Bill Napier: Well, I think the EIS did address the question with respect to alternatives and now the panel is getting back and identified... I think again in that particular one there are three specific areas the panel is requesting information and that's what we're doing is answering those areas that the panel has asked for. It's not so much a generic response that the question wasn't answered properly in the context of project alternatives, for example. The panel has come back and saying, "In order for us to go to hearings, there's a number of specific points we would like to have the proponent provide for and these are the specific points." And that's exactly what we are doing. Paul Pigott: Do you think that you're getting a feel for what this panel, in particular, obviously they are all different... but are you getting a feel for what they want? Bill Napier: In this case the panel had a lot of information to digest. There was a four volume EIS and forty-some technical data reports. They went through, took in to consideration the responses from the reviewers and identified ten areas which they would require information. It's part the environmental assessment process. Paul Pigott: Thanks very much for your time, Bill. Bill Napier: Okay, then. Talk to you later. Paul Pigott: Okay, bye now. -----------------------------------------------------------------

To: 1king who wrote (241)	5/6/1998 7:28:00 PM
From: Winer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1615

Financial Post Article. The Financial Post Sat 02 May 1998 Weekly Edition Section 1, News Page 1 Alan Toulin, Ottawa Bureau Chief INCO HIT BY SPATE OF BAD NEWS: Negatives pile up as ratings agency reassesses debt and environmental panel's request for more data may delay development of Voisey's Bay A ratings agency and an environmental panel delivered two more blows Friday to Inco Ltd. and its billion-dollar plans for the Voisey's Bay nickel project. Standard and Poor's revised its outlook for Inco to "negative" from "stable." At the same time, S&P affirmed the BBB-minus status of Inco's unsecured debt and corporate credit ratings. The nickel-mining giant, already hit hard by falling world nickel prices and rising concerns about its financial plans, said a revised rating outlook by Standard and Poor's is "disappointing." The developments raise the spectre of higher financing costs and a delay in the timetable for bringing Voisey's Bay on stream. "The outlook revision reflects concern over the low nickel price ... and the delays and uncertainty in the development of the Voisey's Bay nickel-copper deposit in Labrador,'' said S&P, adding that further delays or an additional decline in nickel prices could lead to a ratings downgrade. "We believe our strategy at this point is to continue to maximize profitability and cash flow in the current depressed nickel environment," said Inco spokesman Jerry Rogers. The environmental assessment panel's ruling, which found Inco's environmental impact statement to be inadequate, should not alter the company's development timetable, Rogers said. But mining industry analysts said the developments point to a growing list of negative factors piling up around Inco and Voisey's Bay. Manford Mallory, mining analyst with Research Capital Corp. in Toronto, said the request for more environmental information may bog Inco down in a longer process than initially thought. "It's going to be very difficult for them to keep to the timetable," he said. Initial production from Voisey's Bay is expected in 2000. Mallory said Inco may be too optimistic about the difficulties it faces in developing the project. "It takes seven years or longer to develop a greenfield site now," he said. Another analyst, who asked not to be identified, said the revised outlook is a negative factor for the company, which could result in higher borrowing costs. Inco has substantial capital expenditure plans, including an estimated $1.4 billion to develop the mine, mill, smelter and refinery for Voisey's Bay, plus a $580-million expansion of an Indonesian project. Some analysts have suggested Inco take a writedown of the $4.3 billion it paid for the Voisey's Bay deposit, a move the company has rejected. In its ruling Friday, the environmental panel said the information supplied so far by the company is not sufficient for "meaningful discussion at public hearings." The panel requested more information related to marine transportation, water and waste management, mercury contaminant potential, socio-economic effects, insurance and liability provisions, and monitoring and follow-up programs. "We've got our full team ... studying that report," Rogers said. "We still feel we can satisfactorily answer those deficiencies and get the required information back to the panel in the next four to six weeks. He said the environmental review process should be completed by late 1998 and all the environmental permits and approvals for the mine and mill operations should be obtained in the first quarter of 1999. Despite Friday's developments, negotiators for the Newfoundland government said they are optimistic about closing a deal within eight to 10 weeks on a refinery and smelter to be built at Argentia. Inco president Scott Hand has taken over the negotiations in this final stage, the government negotiators said. "The talks have gone well and we're quite optimistic," said a Newfoundland spokesman. The talks are focused on the scale of the refinery-smelter project. Initially, the capacity for processing ore from Voisey's Bay was thought to be 270 million pounds of nickel a year -- about 13% of global demand. The question is whether that much capacity is required, the Newfoundland spokesman said. Inco shares (N/TSE) closed yesterday at $24.90, down 15 cents. ILLUSTRATION: Photo: Peter Redman/FP/ INCO'S SCOTT HAND: Now involved in final stages of smelter negotiations.

To: 1king who wrote (241)	5/6/1998 7:35:00 PM
From: Winer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1615

Correct me if I am wrong please, but it looks to me like the Newfoundland government (and specifically Brian Tobin) is "writing cheques that it's butt can't cash." (That's a metaphor Brian, if you or any of your band read's this!) Is Mr. Tobin some kind of amazing "wheeler dealer" who can circumvent the EIS panel by fast tracking an eight to ten week agreement? Is Mr. Tobin a lawyer in real life? If so he shouldn't he know better? Seems the apparent success of the hydro project negotiations have brought about a certain degree of "irrational exuberance." Am I missing something?

To: 1king who wrote (241)	5/6/1998 9:07:00 PM
From: Francis R. Biscan Jr.	Respond to of 1615

Thanks for the response. >> Again the PR of 100% is misleading.<< Good point.......It can be, but when ever a company has the right to earn back in, I always assume they will. If they do not, more then likely, the property will not be be of great enough merit for either party to continue. >>I really cannot see where Barrier will come up with the money for this program.<< Agree.....this is obviously critical, and not easy is this market. They do say that they have interested parties though, I guess will see. Thanks again, Rich