Originally posted by Kalenn
OK, one specific about the quality of the data you are running off.
from above, "...The rail haul costs in the iron ore sector are estimated to be lower than coal (between one and two c/ntkm) as result of higher standardtrack, locomotives and wagons, higher volumes and higher iron ore density. Information forbauxite was not available but costs are likely to be similar to those of the coal industry.Publically available information on supply chain costs is generally limited due to commercialsensitivities..."
Do you not think it strange that this researcher, even if accepting their own figures, believes that bauxite should be more closely aligned with coal than iron ore? Have you looked at the chemical/mineral composition of the CAY ore?
Do you really think that given
Canyon have been working on this for years and have signed a Strategic Partnership agreement with Mota Engil that they will not have
a very good idea on economic viability?
From the 30th October 2018 ASX release:
HIGHLIGHTS:
• Canyon Resources Ltd has entered into an agreement with MotaEngil Africa providing the framework for the potential development of a total infrastructure and mining solution for the Minim Martap Project.
• Mota-Engil and Canyon will immediately commence the initial rail studies on the existing rail line and the rail link to the Kribi Deep Water Port.
• Mota-Engil has significant expertise in rail construction and related logistics, EPCM capability and construction and mining services.
•
Mota-Engil has the ability to assist Canyon in arranging funding for the rail infrastructure solution.
• Mota-Engil is a global construction and infrastructure company with current mining contracting, road and rail construction contracts in Africa.
the comparison to coal is fair due to the density. iron ore has a density of over 5, where bauxite has 1.2 - meaning that if a train wagon can carry 40t of iron ore, that same carriage can only carry 10t of bauxite.
weight is not the issue here, it is volume.
(20min delay)
