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

Duluth Metals Ltd DULMF



GREY:DULMF - Post by User

Comment by shootforthemoonon May 28, 2013 10:56am
127 Views
Post# 21449809

RE: RE: RE: RE: Updated Presentation

RE: RE: RE: RE: Updated Presentation

The original mine structure/milling would have provided for a negative cash cost, however I believe they may be looking at using another method (teck one) as it would result in a lower capex to begin with and I think there may be some other benefits with it.

 

Under this method, the cash cost wouldn't be negative, it would be around 10 cents. I am not sure if Nickel has been labeled as a by-product or co-product when coming with the cash cost. I believe 40% of the value of the mine is copper and 40% is Nickel depending on what values you use. If it is co-product it means the PGMs are what are bringing us down to the 10 cent level and the nickel is actually almost doubling our revenue. 

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>