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.

Gold Canyon Resources Inc V.GCU



TSXV:GCU - Post by User

Comment by boyonon Nov 09, 2012 7:42pm
288 Views
Post# 20584089

RE: To be..or not to be....

RE: To be..or not to be....

I don't believe Barrick is saying it is not worth mining and the feasibility study shows a significant NPV especially with gold at 1700.00. Barrick says it does not meet its investment criteria at the present because of the estimated 6.7 billion dollar initial capital investment. Nova is saying that number is a very conservative estimate and they are looking at ways to reduce costs.

The initial capital costs at GCU should be more in line with the costs at RR and other projects of similar size. I would expect something in the range of 750 million. Booyaaca you have raised a good point as this issue will ultimately make or break GCU. I vote for make.

Does anyone know the estimated capital cost for TRR ?

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>