Edgy,

Your post says "I think you are misplacing profit with amount of value."

I am not going to split hair on this.

Agreed that NOT would be quite profitable with Ni and PGM over a period of 11 years. The payback period is expected to be about 2-3 years. And there would be no dispute that NOT Eagle Nest is the most advanced project, and could become the first mine in the area. What I was saying was that chromite mining is also profitable and over a much longer period, (noting that NOT also has chromite) and the known chromite resource in the area (BB, BH, BC, BD and BT) is projected to last over a period of some 100 years, which are a tad long. A combined BB and BH deposit should last at least 25-30 years, which would be good enough for me.

I am advocating some kind of JV/synergy between NOT and KWG for chromite development. This would save some money for both companies.

Profits and values are intertwined. Value in the ground means nothing, if the stuff cannot be brought up to the surface,...and transported to the outside world to sell for making some decent profit, short-term or long-term (that why everybody, CLF et al, has been talking roads and RR; roads would probably be fine initially for Ni, but RR would be more economical for both Ni and chromite in the long run). A operation which would generate continous profits, employment for the people and tax revenues for both levels of government, over a long period of time, would be a good thing for Ontario and Canada.

Making profit is key in mining (actually, in all business). If a mining operation is not profitable then it would be better to keep the resource below ground, even if its value would be worth zillions of dollars. Clearly, everybody, including politicians, would recognize the reality that mining companies are not in the charity business. They have to make some reasonable profit for their shareholders.

It should be transparent that I am not playing NOT against KWG, or vice versa, since my feet are in both camps.

goldhunter