Loading ...[@HRA-Coffin] Nice easy question there @nicholaslepan! Good rule of thumb is that you want deposits that will be in the bottom half of the list of prospective deposits when it comes to estimated all-in costs of production per ounce, pound, whatever. Ideally you would really like to be in the lowest quartile when it comes to costs of production. A ton of different things go into that calculation so hard and fast rules are not easy but, in VERY general terms high grade will be better than low grade, some will prefer open pit (I don’t, personally), thicker orebodies with more consistent predictable grade are better than those with erratic grades, projects with reasonably good infrastructure nearby are preferred over remote deposits, deposits in jurisdictions that have transparent and (hopefully) predicable permitting regimes are preferred, those with lower rather than higher minimum capex, or at least low intensity of capital (capital required to produce and ounce/pound/tonne or whatever per year) are also preferred. Then there are other factors like social licence, not being TOO close to habitation, whether a project requires a mill or is heap leachable. Heap leach usually has lower cost of capital and capital intensity -but not always. The big boys in the copper space, for instance, actually prefer sulphide deposits because they can be scaled up more easily. Metallurgy, which will determine how much of the metal is actually recoverable is also huge. If its a standard sulphide mill you would expect 90% plus recoveries while they can be a lot lower on a percentage bases in a heap or in situ leach situation. That confuse you enough?
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.