Re: Silly comments about capex abound
in response to
by
posted on
Nov 15, 2011 10:53AM
CUU own 25% Schaft Creek: proven/probable min. reserves/940.8m tonnes = 0.27% copper, 0.19 g/t gold, 0.018% moly and 1.72 g/t silver containing: 5.6b lbs copper, 5.8m ounces gold, 363.5m lbs moly and 51.7m ounces silver; (Recoverable CuEq 0.46%)
This is the thing I'm getting at. There's no comparison. This is a district with several potential mines. CUU will not be building the road nor the power line alone. I almost expect buildings and machines to be ordered jointly since this will put a bit of demand on the supply side. There will have to be agreement on who gets what and when for some things. CUU and Galore will need to be looked at together. By controlling just these two Teck can control labour demand to a degree. Will we hit 5 billion as some suggest? I doubt it. How much of this is pre ordered? I know Elmer looks at everything right down to depreciation. This IRR statements are factual unlike some other companies. Seeking Alfa did a report on IRR that's worth a read. I don't think they will use CUU in a future article on stretching IRR truths. In one email a person asked me if world demand would drive up our costs 30%. The answer is no. Large scale finds are diminishing. Yes, Cat got 29 billion in orders. If you own/follow the stock you know the details there. (Nice dividend).
Ledcore is building our mine. I've worked with them in the past. They can give an accurate forward estimate on costs. They don't lowball. The contingency fund is enough to deal with any short term spikes.
Sure it's possible that hyper inflation sets in 8 months early but we won't be here to feel it so it doesn't matter. Aside from that, I'd expect the numbers to change little.
It does annoy me and Elmer that people keep trying to compare us to other explosive capex's. Mt Milligan is a confined resource that gets more expensive to get at. SC is much cleaner than Galore. The equipment required simply costs less. Longer term things like upkeep benefit us in that respect. There are many posters who try sly ways to imply that Elmer has lied about costs. (None of the people here make those exagerations.) It's not really even right to suggest Elmer was short sighted in his cost projections. Clearly, he did not take advantage of the present situation to give us that earlier projection. It was fattened to give us a cushion.
Yes, I did discuss that with Elmer.