Share
2,907 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 3837
clock Created with Sketch. 03/07/24
18:13
Share
Originally posted by Helios11:
↑
" 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. 1375+842 = 2227klm 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 1024! Shorter trucking and Rail than PMT on all fronts. 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.
Expand
@neometals I am positive you, nor anyone from PMT will answer that. With scale like an ambitious 800klt per year comes problems, and PMT need scale to reduce Opex and a viable Capex expenditure for studies. But lets examine some old world math.
(20min delay)