Re: 2017 not so good for nickel: BMI

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)

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

Edgy

Rank: President [?]

Points: 38290 [?]

Votes: 354 Score: 3.3 [?]

Your Vote:

Please Log In to Vote

Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

Re: 2017 not so good for nickel: BMI

in response to

Re: 2017 not so good for nickel: BMI

Babjak1

posted on Oct 20, 2016 01:29PM

Not your posting in particular but the whole topic.

The arguments that you posted imho only strenghtens my view of the subject. If good quality can be had for a decent price then why would anyone bother with low grade?

Namely I relish that less competitive and envoronmentally unfriendly mines close that Noront's future mine will comfortably have an assured market for it's nickel and associated metals. Hence gentler financing terms for construction of our mine.