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: Frank C. Smeenk, President and CEO of KWG to be Featured on CTV Power Play

I think you missed my point.

Quality of deposit, size or how you are heating the ore for smelting has got nothing to do with whether piping the ore slurry is economical for chromite.

I remind you that Noront with it's nickel ore is concentrating the ore before it is turned into a slurry for piping. I do not know if that would also be done or possible for chromite ore.

All I know about chromite is from feasibility studies for determination of whether trucking the ore is practical vs railway. Hands down railway is the way to go because of the bulk issue. I think Cliffs was only considering trucking it's ore because the rail option was closed to them. If trucking is not very practical I suspect piping would be also.

For nickel ore, it is not as bulky and that is why Noront considered using a pipe and trucking as an alternative UNTIL rail becames available.

Thanks for the effort GM, Ed.

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply