Quick
Search: 
 
advanced search
 GSW Home    GeoRef Home    My GSW Alerts    Contact GSW    About GSW    Journals List    Help 
Exploration and Mining Geology Signup for GSW Email News
JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS

Exploration and Mining Geology; January 2004; v. 13; no. 1-4; p. 119-128; DOI: 10.2113/gsemg.13.1-4.119
© 2004 Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BURNS, N. R.
Right arrow Articles by DOGGETT, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation

Nanisivik Mine — A Profitability Comparison of Actual Mining to the Expectations of the Feasibility Study

NEIL R. BURNS* and MICHAEL DOGGETT

Department of Geological Sciences and Geological Engineering, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7L 3N6

The Nanisivik mine offers a unique opportunity to examine the economics of a mining scenario from its original feasibility study through to closure. In the early 1970s, the Strathcona Sound project (exploration around the Nanisivik mine) had advanced to the point where a significant mineralized body had been defined and a feasibility study was initiated. The study supported development of the Nanisivik mine, with government investment in regional infrastructure, and the mine was constructed and operated for 26 years. Many elements of the feasibility study were difficult to estimate because the project was unique in its high Arctic setting. As a result, many differences were found when comparing the actual mining data to the feasibility study. The majority of these differences were the result of an actual mine life of 26 years instead of the planned 12.5 years. Most of the mining costs were higher than estimated and production occurred at a much higher extraction rate than planned. On a constant dollar basis, the metal prices were, on average, below the feasibility estimates. For the most part, these differences balanced out, with the actual mining being only slightly more profitable than anticipated in the feasibility study.







JOURNAL HOME HELP CONTACT PUBLISHER SUBSCRIBE ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2009 by Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Petroleum