Sadly, Trade4Profit88, direct peer comparisons are rarely satisfactory due to the inevitable idiosyncrasies of particular deposits and companies, and hence their incommensurability.
Nevertheless, I guess we're all guilty of giving it a go. Here's my own attempt vis a vis Widgie Nickel Ltd from earlier in the year. I used WIN because both companies currently boast significant Nickel endowments, Indicated and Inferred, of around 168,000 metal tonnes - G88's Quicksilver, 168,500 Ni tonnes; WIN's Mt Edwards 168,060 Ni tonnes.
https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/66472872/single
But as I say, such comparisons always have shortcomings.
One important consideration is the particular deposition of the mineralisation. A lower grade but shallow deposit can easily trump higher grades at depth.
Another is the physical properties of the ore. If the matrix of one is soft clay, and the other is hard rock, then clearly the former has the economic advantage.
Look at the beautiful horizontality and shallowness of the way Quicksilver is laid down:
...And then ponder the lower CapEx and OpEx advantages of a shallow (low stripping ratio), free dig deposit that requires no drill and blast, hence no surface magazines, and only simple workshops (that may yet be outsourced to Lake Grace, a town already servicing a wide agricultural-machinery catchment) for efficient load and haul fleets.
Even after the mine is done (and we're likely talking a 20year+ minelife at 1Mt/annum), low waste movement and dump generation at Quicksilver will result in lower closure costs. It's a gift that keeps coming.
And it's not just low-cost, low-complexity mining. The proposed processing route too is simple, low-energy and mechanical. It eliminates harsh chemicals from the process, and keeps costs low.
Cheap and simple. Those are the watchwords of mining and processing at Quicksilver.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
