Hi Ank. Sorry, that was just an off the cuff multiHi Ank. Sorry, that was just an off the cuff multiplier (hence the word 'probably'I should have just put my projected figure in.
AUA projected their updated capex at $650MM for an increased production scenario of 30,000tpd. I'm not sure if there is a contingency factor built in or not, and also doesn't included another $45MM in sustaining capital costs for the life of mine.
I expect somewhere in the $700MM to $800MM is where ND would sit, including contingency so it should have read 'have a capex of probably 2X that of Mactung. Keep in mind that would be for an upgraded production of 30,000tpd compared to the 20,000tpd I had mentioned. Increasing production from 20,000 to 30,000tpd would mean profits rising from $140MM/year to just over $220MM/year with a net profit of $20/tonne.
Nice to see the production numbers broken down on Northern Dancer though, the lower grade isn't an issue because its open pit and when you compare it to Mactung (which is feasible as per the BFS) we should be able to speculate that ND will be just as, if not more feasible......
Anyways, there are reasons to own both although I think strictly from a Tungsten perspective NTC is a better shorter term investment vehicle in the next 1-2 years. An LGO investment I think should be based much more on their Vanadium asset in that same timeframe. ND is a longer term project with production 4-5 years out. Thats why I own LGO for Vanadium(with Tungsten/Moly as a longer term bonus) and NTC directly for Tungsten.
lurk