HIGH-GRADE NI-CU-PT-PD-ZN-CR-AU-V-TI DISCOVERIES IN THE "RING OF FIRE"

NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)

Free
Message: Re: still need FNC for a mine?
2
Jan 23, 2009 07:54AM
6
Jan 23, 2009 08:00AM
1
Jan 23, 2009 08:23AM
17
Jan 23, 2009 08:41AM

This is my reasoning: Imagine a major deleloping all the infrastructure for a NOT land based mine. Chasing veins only to pull up ores only to discover that some good veins cross into FNC territory, but now imagine the inflated cost to cross the boundary. Plus any development with NOT will obviously involve FWR, since you might as well get the chrome while your up there.

Also remember, it's still early days and nickel does't rifle a bullet hole in one section, but more like a smattering of shotgun shells all over the place. Hopefully NOT, FWR, and FNC will have nickel and Chrom deposits. In a recent discussion with FWR's president, he is still hopeful of nickel, though he seems very happy with Chrome.



Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply