RE:Lebel-Sur-Quevillon vs. Urban-BarryAgreed that running or mothballed mill at present may not be a big issue.
- mothballing will enable easier access for drilling out increased reserves being sought.
- an assesment should have been made to ensure skilled mill operators are available when the mill reopens - perhaps a retainer has been agreed with staff?
Urban Barry Mill location
- As noted the distance between the BL mill and BTR/OSK ounces is similar to that for the proposed OSK greenfield site mill.
- the logging routes used for haulage to BL may not be a problem if a concentrator which could reduce ore volume by ~ 20 to 1 was used close to the OSK/BTR ounces.
The current thinking seems to be to use BTR's limited treasury resources to increase the company value by adding ounces in the ground.
BTR shareholders may benefit more by increasing the resource attractiveness, until a consilidated Urban Barry camp is achieved
Lebel-Sur-Quevillon vs. Urban-Barry
The story I heard in years past was that MTO Urban Barry mill had value as is WAS PERMITTED. MTO was breakeven at best, so I think running or mothballed is not really that big an issue.
The mill still provides optionality to whomever wants to own it and operate it.
MTO lost value when it was "announced" that Osisko was looking at a mill near Lebel-Sur-Quevillon for a greenfield development as this was at paved highway and power grid.
It does not appear to me that Lebel is much closer to Windfall Lake than Le Suer Township/Desmaraisville where the existing mill is located. So it depends a bit on where the ounces are distributed in the region, the various grades at each, the potential mine sequencing in development, and then whether you have a combined Osisko/BTR or they are going it alone each indivudually.
My gut says its better to combine the two regardless if you use Urban Barry upgraded mill or not, and then IF you do combine them and use the upgraded mill, what size and process(es) you develop to maximize the combined NPV's.