Re: NPV5 & NPV8 ? -Yes, you're right PPC...
in response to
by
posted on
Dec 22, 2012 12:15AM
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%)
If the 171M tons were counted as ore in the BFS it would make a tremendous difference in the final NPV numbers. I am sure Teck as any other Major will take this into consideration and will not miss this important difference here.
So I'm assuming Teck requested this 171M tons to be considered waste rock. And then add a removal cost to it. (If I tore down my house, even I could get a decent amount for recycling the "waste" material.) I can speculate a few reasons about why this was calculated this way. Has anyone actually spoken to Elmer and asked EXACTLY why this was included?
The way this BFS came out is very unusual. Its like this was written for Teck to repel any CUU bidders until they buy out the entire district and say "hey BHP and others, Look at the BFS, it has massive potential if we dump another $40M in drilling next year. Oh and it can be expanded waaay beyond 130,000 tons per day. Oh and that waste rock is now worth multiple $Billions."
There are many questions needing answers, I'm glad this "weird" BFS was dropped on a Friday.