Re: Road versus Rail, or both?
in response to
by
posted on
May 13, 2016 12:55PM
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)
we can picture Alan chanting: EW, EW, EW and nothing else
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Some posters with blinders on rushed to lynch Al Coutts for stating the obvious.
He feels that EW road was needed first even with RR to be built soon after.
Here is Chief Executive Officer for Mattawa First Nation Management saying today
at N. Bay mining meeting: They are more supportive of roads than rail to move
the Chromite.( Were A. Coutts preffered road for Nickel & PMs only)
Mattawa Chief Executive Officer states further: As for rail ...it is something we can
look at in the future but I don't feel thats a priority right now.
My note: these are not A. Coutt's words even though he agrees with that view.
Even KWG management agreed with that timeline.
GLTA,
Fossil