WR1 General Discussion, page-31195

Interesting analysis. I gather the email reference was a subtle point directed towards possibly myself, either way the only thing I can take away from your post is that you most definitely work for PMT. Its very clear from ceo that you are more than just an investor.

In anycase, lets breakdown where you have it factually incorrect.

"PMET already has an all-season Cat 4 road that connects to the TT; PMET road construction is complete along this route, and this road transportation is technically feasible today pending community approvals." You need the TT to manage a 270klm 90T load which it cant. So the current plan for PMT is.

- 21klm Corvette to TT *90T*
- 270klm TT to BDH intersection *45T*
- 270klm back to corvette to pick up another 45t
-270klm TT to BHH intersection

831klm and 810klm of that is ~10per tonne per 100klm.

You then need to go south 544klm to Matagami with a 90T load.

$10p/t per 100klm seems ok as a benchmark.

As Ken mentioned, Beccancour is the destination of choice. From Matagami is 842klm to Beccancour.

Total trip length for PMT is!!!!!!!
1375+842 = 2227klm

- Then you need to travel back to Corvette for 1352 of trucking that chews 40L per 100in fuel. (Thats what I could find on net)

PMET road construction is complete along this route, and this road transportation is technically feasible today pending community approvals. Currently objections exist to the TT being used, and the rail being established. Its in PMT studies.
New rail built northward along the BDH to Rupert River: This would be the ideal case for PMET; they could connect along the TT to rail much further north than Matagami. Winsome could potentially also benefit from this long-term. The reality is this construction also won't begin until 2030, so this is a long-term possible route for PMET, potentially Winsome as well

Just plainly stupid. Winsome need a 60k road for a total trip length of 1024! Shorter trucking and Rail than PMT on all fronts.

The southern portion of route 167 also requires re-doing. Will also require additional consultations given these discussions for the route extension occurred prior to considerations of mining haulage. How do you figure? PMT just built a 21klm Cat 4 road in 6months. If wr1 deviate its 13klm to connect to the current plan along a topological high.


I see no reason for PMET to partake in financing the route 167 extension along with Winsome. Maybe the economics will change things for PMET and make them willing to chip in for financing the route 167 extension. The road is definitely a benefit for PMET if put in place well before the northward rail extension along the BDH given the decrease in hauling distance for PMET. Lots of potential developments in play, which is interesting for all invested in James Bay plays given developing infrastructure.

As a winsome shareholder I could care less if you chip in or not, you will be forced to go south. ESG considerations aside, no provincial or federal government is going to side with PMT spewing diesel for 1325klm when the same out come is achieved for 550klm.

There are 0 benefits to the Cree allowing any heavy haulage west when traffic and safety are already a concern.

By all means play the long silly game. Do the math and breakdown 45t trucks over 270klm for to reach 800klt. Every X minutes a truck passes! Ill wait for your reply.