RE:RE:The Use Of $6 Nickel Is FantasticThere is no Cobalt (Co) in the Baptiste deposit, only nickel, iron, and chromium. I suspect they will eventually have a byproduct credit for the magnetite (iron ore) which occurs at 5% insitu.
I agree that reducing the throughput to save capital cost is probably not a good idea. Perhaps they should look at doubling it if the Van target is as good as it initially looks.
macaw wrote: I think you have to take into account the payability vs LME. At 90% (or$5.40) I estimate the Co value of CAD .54 cents. This is using the old estimates for tonnage. I haven't incorporated the new estimate yet. I am not sure if the new tonnage extends the mine life or increases the Tonnes/Day. Given that we are open at depth through the deposit I am not sure changing the life is the right approach. Any thoughts would be appreciated. The old estimate had 114,000 Tonnes/day and Mine life of 24yrs. I assumed the Tonnes per day had to do with the Mill size.
AlternativeView wrote: I forgot to mention that there is a substantial overlap between RE and PEA, in that some assumed market price for the commodity needs to be chosen for both.
This chosen number for market price drives the economic pit outline and is the basis for the term, "pit constrained"
Reading between the lines, we can expect that any new PEA would also use $6 nickel, implying that FPX believes that Baptiste is viable at that price level. And perhaps even lower, given Turenne's conservatism.