Glad you have some figures. With respect to Panamax sized ships,...

Glad you have some figures. With respect to Panamax sized ships, have you heard of “slow steaming” and the reductions in fuel consumption that provides. In case not, I understand that since about 2008-2009 the vast majority of shipping companies employed a maximum speed around 16 knots resulting in significant fuel burn reductions. Just a 10% reduction from max speed when loaded produces around a 33% reduction in fuel burn. So I wonder what reduction in fuel burn they get with a reduction in speed of about 20%? Sure it means a longer trip but just like a conveyor belt, once the belt is loaded and rolling the next bit of supply will arrive not long after the first bit. If you’re not sure about those figures, have a look around a live shipping traffic service like AIS finder or Marine Traffic and let us know just how many Panamax (or any cargo/freighter/tankers) you can find doing more than 16 knots underway when loaded … any?

You raise ESG concerns and note the negative on that ledger with longer distance steaming (if the spod goes to good ‘ol US of A and isn’t toll converted elsewhere …. Given the highly significant reduction in overburden removal by going underground, the 60% of production energy coming from renewable energy sources on site (solar and wind) plus the higher grade of ore with lower impurities than most other deposits producing reductions in process flow sheet complexity, reduced by-product (note difference with “co-product” and reduced process energy needs, I’d say the needle swings fairly easily in LTR’s favour compared to other operations.