Here is my rationale for why Solurail has opted for...

Here is my rationale for why Solurail has opted for containerised transportation of spodumene aside from the reasons given in the article.

The transportation of bulk ore or grain in containers is not normal practice, anyone that has been to the ports that despatch those products will know.

Going by the figures in the article, I have calculated that a train transporting 20,000 tonnes of containerised spodumene would be about 4.5 kilometres long, this includes 215 wagons, several locomotives and a caboose

I am pretty sure, trains of that length won’t be crossing the border on their way to Texas.

I have chosen 20,000 tonnes because the first shipload out of NAL was around that weight. shipments from PLS to China are usually about 22,000 tonnes.

The reason I think they have gone for containers, is to make it easier to transfer ore from rail to cargo ship.

Transferring ore from NAL to the Port of Quebec is a relatively short trip when compared to where the other miners in Quebec will have to send their ore from.

It would take a fraction of the time to get 20,000 tonnes of ore from NAL to port than it would from any of the James Bay mines (and none of them have direct rail access).

Transferring containers from rail to cargo ship is uncomplicated by comparison with the current method.

Therefore, I see SYAQ sending containers of spodumene to the P of Q, transferring them to a cargo ship, and transporting to the US or European refineries in quantities of 20,000 tonnes or more.

Ore stored in containers at the port awaiting ship, will not require storage sheds, another factor to be considered.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_trains