RE:east pitNF, good guessing. I am getting into my busy season and just do not have the time to do my sleuthing and peel the wrappers off this one. Just from the surface info, the pit in question was part of the original plan, was mined. Because the rules have changed since they no longer mined that spot it is no longer covered by permit. Consultations required. They entered into that process last year in spring. When they ran out of ore at the bottom of the pit last fall, call that the dirt bottom pit ( fit that into your mother load at the bottom scenarios), they decided to move back to a previously dug pit, Gibraltar. It had to be dewatered. They needed a permit just to dewater it? Maybe one and the same? From the sounds of the Tribune's article, this layoff was not a normal thing. The mine employs 700?, So laying off 40 is not that big a thing, but truck drivers and shovel operators? What percentage of operators were laid off? 10%?, 50%? If there was a glitch in there plan to move to a new pit, then pick another spot? Why the layoff? Or is the layoff because they moved back to Gibraltar, which doesn't need as much stripping, so they currently outright do not need the extra trained staff and don't mind risking losing them to other companies? It is the lot of us down here to question, and await the next feeding. Popcorn tastes better.
nofluff wrote: I do not believe it exists. Misprint I believe. Page 17, Item 1.11 speaks to the need to bring ext pit into the the lease permit. Plan was to do that 10 years from now. It is now known to b a much bigger richer ore body than was initially thought.
It needs dewatering as well. I think our pr guys at the jurnal just did a miss spell. U get what u pay for:)) If I am correct, it will add huge value to the gib mine. My guess is that the bottom is tied to the mighty bonanza.
So we mine it early and find the feed and start underground.
nf