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 : Montello Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: gordon m. who wrote (2319)8/20/1998 6:50:00 PM
From: JP  Respond to of 4256
 
<<Did Pat mention what the overburden(s) are for each of their targets ? >>

He said that it was in the 50 to 80 meter range. But he also said that Kennecott were not worried about that. My own opinion on overburden is that it is nice if you don't have any but it is not a big deal. I have worked as a project engineer on many construction projects and I am not worried about the cost of removing the overburden. The big cost is building the access road. In my opinion -most of the ramblings about overburden- are just that - ramblings. JP



To: gordon m. who wrote (2319)8/20/1998 8:36:00 PM
From: Jesse  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 4256
 
Gord, of course as little overburden as possible is wanted, and fortunately the knowledgeable ones behind most of these operations know that.

Consider that a 600m by 600m 'pipe' at 80 meters of overburden would require removing, say, a patch 800m by 800m for stable slopes: at minimum 800 times 800 times 80 equals about 51 million cubic meters of wet stuff, say with a specific gravity of 2.50.
That's 127 million tonnes of material to move and store in a stable pile. Since the stuff may be flowing, stabilizing dams may be necessary. _ Let's be generous, and say the operation costs down around $5.00 per tonne. That's over $600million for overburden removal.
-- Rough estimates here,
but concerns are obviously more than just ramblings. ;)

Cheers and ciao!

-j
:>