GREY:CATXF - Post by User
Comment by
mudguyon Oct 17, 2012 11:29am
164 Views
Post# 20493300
RE: RE: RE: Cooper Mountain comparison
RE: RE: RE: Cooper Mountain comparison I'm not up on CUM but I recall there was a pre-existing operation there, so that would lower capex.
I think the LVN capex is good for constraining CCY's operation. Inmet in Panama has similar low numbers for a larger pit operation.
Big ticket savings for CCY capex in my view: low cost railway hook-up (<$1M for loading spur and infrastructure); minimal power cost (a substation and a few towers; water and road access minor; low cost delivery of heavy equipment via rail and road; labour savings over first world mines like CUM. I think much of this is reflected in LVN capex estimate, so I use that rather than comparing to some of the recent projects in Canada and US that are priced out. Also, no weather contingency needed for building in Mexico- year round.
Rail and labour costs are a big opex savings for CCY- getting concentrate to the Pacific and the bulk port is the best in class.