Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

St James Gold Corp V.LORD

Alternate Symbol(s):  LRDJF

St. James Gold Corp. is a Canada-based gold exploration and mining company. The Company is on focused the discovery and development of economic mineral deposits by acquiring prospective exploration projects. The Company holds 29 claims, covering 1,791 acres, in the Gander gold district in north-central Newfoundland located adjacent to New Found Gold Corp.’s Queensway North project, and nine claims, covering a total of 1,730 acres, in central Newfoundland located adjacent to Marathon Gold's Valentine Lake property. The Grub Line property is located approximately 3.5 kilometers (km) west of the town of Gander, NL. The Quinn Lake Property comprises two contiguous mineral licenses totaling 700 hectares (ha).


TSXV:LORD - Post by User

Bullboard Posts
Comment by staolinon Nov 09, 2009 11:29am
379 Views
Post# 16467324

RE: Thompson Creek permitting Davidson

RE: Thompson Creek permitting DavidsonYou can read through the pre application and review documents for the Davidson mine proposal here:

Davidson Project Proposal Documents

The public comments and submissions include over 200 letters from citizens of the area. They voice some fairly legit concerns that could change the project significantly. The major concerns mostly revolve around the mine's proximity to the town.

The mine is only about 2km away from neighbourhoods. This is a huge concern because the water flows from the mine downward into the water supply of the town. Many of the government review submissions indicate lack of baseline data and hydrogeologic information for the models and analysis used. It seems to me like collecting such data on water wells, groundflow and the hydrogeology properties of the area will take some time.

The current plan is that the mine and facilities will be built squarely in the middle of one of the scenic views from the town and highway. From the comments it seems this is a huge detriment. Also the plan is to haul 50 trucks a day through the town and highway to the Endako mill. Also, the citizens feel like the short life span may be reason to suspect TCM may take no long term concern regarding the area's environment or economy - sort of like a fly-by-night mine.

I didn't read through the 1000's of pages of the environmental assessment report. Here are my somewhat substantiated ideas after reading the gov't reviews and public input:

TC did the analysis for a 10 year mine life. They want to get this mine running on the cheap. The solution to many public issues such as the detrimental impact on town scenery, water well contamination and noise pollution is to build the mine entrance and facilities on the other side of the mountain, adding an extra 20km of infrastructure that must be created. I have not read any TCM plans to do that.

One of the more informative public comments can be found here

Dude brings up some good points about how it doesn't make sense to do a study for a 10 year mine life when the mine can go 30 years with excellent grade ore. Also points out the economics of hauling the ore compared to a mill.

Anyways, after reading the stuff, I wonder what motivation there would be to do the Davidson mine if there was truly only a 10 year life span planned.

Here is my completely unsubstantiated speculation. Would TCM be understating their intentions of mine life span in order to build the mine in a more convenient, cheaper location and pass a less stringent environmental review? Then, years down the road once the town is accustomed to the mine presence, announce the intention to expand it?

The reason I make these points and ask that question here is because if TCM ultimately expands the lifespan of Davidson they will probably build a mill. How would that affect the Lone Pine property and its potential? Having a mill 45 km away, I mean.




Bullboard Posts