London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
let me know when you find then Strudel.
MS
Morning Strudel, should I be patenting my 'invention'?!
Our neighbours playing "nearology" may yet find they have valuable land. We may need all that space for our railroad marshalling yard for all the wagons shipping ore to Telfer.
I'm buying shares in the company that makes those solar powered conveyors!!
How does SW fit into the transport process? Is WW not on the way to Telfer from HAV. So, if SW is indeed as good as we hope to see from the magnetic images then suddenly you do not only have HAV to transport but also SW ore. Then the investment case for other means of transport, i.e. a conveyor belt or a rail line, is not HAV but SW which is closer to Telfer. HAV will then only be the extension line. It's just an incremental investment approach. You will built a railway line a lot faster than a mine as well so they have time to wait for further results, even at SW.
Anyway, seems like reasonable to consider the alternatives.
MS
I am going for a solar powered conveyor!!
OT, did you tweak the software so it doesn't flag debris blowing in the lighter stripes that run through miles and miles of this part of Oz?
I'm heartened to see that NC are busy on the outer extremities..... Still trying to find limits of extents?
It was OT, thanks for this, our posts must've crossed.
Was it OldTimer who ran the last two consecutive images through some image processing software to highlight the differences? Are you awake yet OT? Fancy doing us a favour cos I can't see anything different.
Arnieibb, monster trucks are eco friendly when they are electric and you have a solar power farm. Both technologies are in operation at other working mines. No-one has brought the two together yet, I don't think.
There is also an Ozzie mine that has a 30mile long conveyor for shifting ore. Not sure what mineral they transport though. Iron ore or coal probably justify trains or conveyors to be constructed for moving ore long and shorter distances respectively. Gold may have (relatively) less volume of ore to be shifted to Telfer for processing so may suit trucks. All this has been discussed before on this BB including calculations over the cost of a gallon of diesel in the outback!
Urban - That's brilliant. A practical insight. Thanks
Gents,
Wrote the below in December; it’s still an option.
I am sure that all possibilities re transport are being considered. I am not sure of build times so reckon trucks would be used in short term but dependant on how much work would be required to bring current road to Telfer up to scratch and how big Hav eventually proves to be this may be a long term consideration?
The study of many overland conveyor (OLC) vs. truck haulage reveal some basic and new facts:
1. Break even point for OLC is a transport circuit that must convey 2 million tons per annum over more than one kilometer or the total multiplier of tons and kilometers . This is further dependent on local fuel costs and terrain difficulty. Some countries subsidize their diesel fuel that artificially lowers the truck penalty - that is now changing.
2. Conveyors can often be routed in a more direct path than the road haulage thereby reducing the kilometer penalty. The path may include bridges over rivers, roads, railroads, etc.
3. Conveyors can negotiate rough terrain to 18 degrees or more making for shorter paths or that would require tunneling by trucks.
4. Conveyor are more efficient with fuel usage than trucks especially with the payload of an empty truck return haul
5. Conveyor designs have become more efficient with new rubber compounds and new design methods, that lower rolling energy by 50% or more than many suppliers of rubbers from 5 years ago. Trucks have not seen such improvements in rolling losses. A case in point is the Curragh 20 km single flight overland that transports 2500 t/h. It is light and fast (7.5 m/s). It is very light for the tons conveyed due to efficient use of sheet metal components for is idler and belt support and wind shielding. IN 2007, it was the fastest operating belt conveyor in Australia. Speed lowers the conveyor system width which is the most capital intensive parameter. Some have disparaged the design and been wrong in their assessment. It's 5 m carry side and 10 m return idler spacing is proven to be appropriate when the plant has been properly operated.
6. New research into more efficient belt conveyor operations is proving that further cost effective gains are possible compared to trucks and trains. More difficult terrain, stronger belts, lower belt strength as measured by the necessary Safety Factor, lower rolling resistance designs, and lower metal mass per km all point to ongoing improvements over truck and trains.
7. New conveyor configurations can be found with better trough shapes, pipe, and semi-pipe designs are now a reality where high lifts and sharp curvatures are required that add to belt conveyor transport efficiency.
8. Studies of +100 km conveyors does demonstrate the ability for long and efficient transport compared wih train haulage. Risk Analysis then becomes an important factor in the "what if" scenarios.
Agreed Jerry - picked up on that comment also. I guess if it is of a "certain" size then it would be feasible to look at investing in other transport means than trucking.
Just had a look at the satellite image from today - I can't see anything discernibly different from the last two so I guess we are definitely into infill drilling mode now.
https://apps.sentinel-hub.com/eo-browser/?lat=-21.72378&lng=122.65169&zoom=16&time=2020-02-25&preset=2_FALSE_COLOR&datasource=Sentinel-2%20L1C
GLA - Paddy
Jerry - Yes, that's interesting. Cost, volumes and mine-life would dictate the mode of transport from Havieron to Telfer for processing. If high volume then trucking would surely be inefficient? SB's reference to other forms of ore transport to processing is an inference of the higher volumes that they believe Havieron will be able to deliver, indicating resource size. Speculation,
For me the webcast was not about gaining new info, we had that on the RNS but instead the fact that he underlined and put in bold the info from the RNS! When he refers to the excellent grades I believe he is referring to assays not yet reported. As mentioned by reddirt. They are able to use XRF to scan the cores as soon as they are drilled...this is being reported up without a doubt. Very excited for the next few weeks/months
He said ‘results are like nothing we’ve ever seen before in the region’.
Another interesting thing to come out of the presentation was that SB said that they were investigating methods of transportation from hav to telfer. Initially we assumed trucking but it must be a lot of ore to be looking at other methods such as rail or conveyor???
LTinv
Maybe...
I believe we should only be concerned with the economics at Havieron-Telfer. Extraction costs across other Newcrest mines is, imho, relevant only insofar as the processes they use to maximise efficiencies at other operations can be applied to the Havieron development. It will be a new mine and Newcrest will be able to design, plan and develop it to achieve max earnings from it
Did I get it all wrong?
In one of the slides SB explained that NC has the lowest extraction cost in the industry, at 795 $/oz. That leaves them with ± 800 $/oz, which translates to the 200/240 $/oz for GGP. However with Telfer already there that 795 figure could even be less, although you got to truck it (or rail), but we are probably still lower than the 795
1 Billion MCAP making the share price around 28p. However, i was thinking surely the extraction price would be much cheaper at Havieron as opposed to Telfer with the infrastructure already in place, For the most part it’s just setting up the transport of going from Havieron to Telfer. I was assuming that the price per ounce we’d be getting at Havieron would be higher than what NC were getting at Telfer due to the set up already being there?
Of course you have the cost of getting it out of the ground but you can get an idea of the scale we are talking about here
BTB
At 27m oz that would avg around 4bn. Take our 25/30% and you get to around 1bn
It does work that way when calculating. I think biswas gave 2 prices on value. One was around $160 and the other was around $135.
Mind-blowing, the whole situation is amazing.What sp would 34.5 billion equate to I wonder?
Current gold price multiplied by 27m ounces equals
£34.542 Billion pounds
BTB