To my mind, we won't know until we've seen the numbers, but I think the Schaft Creek numbers have to make sense on their own in terms of building that deposit. A district may come later, but is likely a long time away given the snail's pace that permitting follows in BC.

I've heard some chatter about combining Galore and Schaft, but all sorts of rumours abound, and I think the ore could be different enough that processing it together might not make much sense. I'll let the seasoned metallurgists weigh in on that.

In terms of costs, one drawback to being way up north is the lack of infrastructure and services. Last mention of Seabridge which is different than Schaft, being a gold first deposit, but they give some breakdown of their most recent capex (PFS also led by TTW, with help from Moose Mountain and about 10 other firms). They are doing some underground and other different things, but we can get some idea of what rough comparables will be for our project I think. They are only 68 km NW of Stewart, so a bit closer to bigger centers and shipping, but it shouldn't make that big of a difference. Again, context is everything, so we'll have our own unique cost savings and extra expenditures. btw, I don't own any Seabridge, just looking at comparable projects and Red Chris is much smaller scale.

FROM SEABRIDGE: http://www.seabridgegold.net/ksm_engineer.php

Capital Costs

Start-up capital costs (including contingencies of US$666 million) are estimated at US$5.31 billion, approximately 13% (US$0.6 billion) above the start-up capital cost estimate from the 2011 PFS. Approximately half of the increase in start-up capital costs is due to the design changes including: (i) lining a portion of the tailings management facility and additional dam structure; (ii) changing road and power line access from Teigen Creek to Treaty Creek; (iii) additional water management and water treatment facilities; and (iv) additional costs for tunnel conveying and ore stockpiling. The balance of the capital cost increase is due to: (i) a more conservative estimated productivity rate during construction; (ii) higher labor rates compared to last year; and (iii) equipment cost inflation.