Scotgold Resources Share Discussion Threads

[sum ting wong] 26/7/2020 11:02

Quack quack oops!

[steelwatch] 23/7/2020 20:20

AM-PM Roundup
All-time highs in gold price in sight as bulls keep the pedal to the metal

[pr100] 23/7/2020 17:05

mining, there's more to life than SEPA. Scottish Natural Heritage seem most concerned:

"The proposal is close to and could affect the River Tay Special Area of Conservation (SPA) classified for its three species of Lamprey and Atlantic salmon and otter (more information can be found here: ).

"In our view, this proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the River Tay SAC. There is potential for silt pollution form the storage area to enter the River Tay and affect the fish and lamprey species. Consequently, the Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority, as competent authority, is required to carry out an appropriate assessment in view of the site’s conservation objectives for its qualifying interests."

All you and I know is that the "At Risk" red alert is still in place and the planning application for this peat repository is still not approved after seven months. The planning committee held virtual meetings on 27 April and 25 May with the meetings scheduled for June and July cancelled only because there was no business to discuss.

[mineng] 23/7/2020 14:50

Result of Scottish Environment Protection Agency consultation from planning website....
___________________________________________________________________
"10 February 2020

Thank you for your consultation email which SEPA received on 23 January 2020.

Advice for the planning authority

We would confirm that whilst we have no objection in principle to this planning application there are a number of the working practices associated with the construction of the peat bund that have raised environmental risk and poor working practices. Please note the advice provided below."(continues with detail)
__________________________________________________________________________

This consultation response suggests to me that the proposal, with certain conditions attached to a consent as to working practices, which may potentially be at extra cost, is likely to be approved.

[pr100] 23/7/2020 08:22

So have Scotgold put a cost on all the additional work they have been forced into in order to lift and store considerably more peat than they thought was there? ISTR that they were expecting around 0.5 metre depth of peat whereas the actual depth is ten times greater.

Suitable storage space is in short supply and they have even investigated transporting it off site. They are now risking all by dumping the peat in an unauthorised temporary storage area outside the site boundary, known as Peat Storage Area 8. The planning permission they sought in order to legitimise this has still not been granted after 7 months so Scotgold are proceeding in the knowledge that they could be forced to restore this site and its access road and find somewhere else to move the peat to, which could be an insurmountable problem which causes mine development to cease.

The planning authority has red flagged Peat Storage Area 8, giving it the dreaded "At Risk" status but Scotgold seem to have no choice but to continue fly-tipping the peat while they wait to hear their fate.

[steelwatch] 21/7/2020 11:51

Summat's spooked the horses 🐎😀

[steelwatch] 17/7/2020 16:48

Lovely weather for cracking on 🌞

[pr100] 16/7/2020 16:39

"On my only tour of the full length of the tunnel, my guesstimate was that it was approx 10 or 12 feet high and wide, narrowing to considerably less in several places."
=====

I finally found the answer - and I wasn't too far out.

Prior to enlargement the portal was 2.5m wide and 3.1m high (8ft 2in x 10ft 2in).

After enlargement the dimensions are: 3.5m x 4.0m (11ft 6in x 13ft 3in).

The new dimensions extend to at least 400m into the tunnel with some width expansion to make passing places.

That's over a third bigger than the old opening and must have generated a huge mountain of waste (some of which may have been optimistically tossed into a stockpile for processing - in which case it will be just as low grade as the previous stockpile from the previous tunnel works).

[glenalmond] 16/7/2020 07:07

Thar really is one quite magnificent photo, steel! We need more positivity like that in here and less of the nay-saying bullshine 👍

[pr100] 13/7/2020 16:08

Don't be sucked in by the constant chatter about the 30% Scottish gold premium. There's good reason behind Scotgold's decision never to factor it in to their projected revenues.

First, if the mine produces all the gold that Scotgold are claiming (unlikely given their poor track record on the BPT forecasts) then the rarity value of Scottish gold diminishes, and with it the premium.

Second, it costs a lot more to produce "Scottish" gold, maybe 30% more, so there's a good chance they won't carry on with it for long.

Third, there's no smelter in the mine plan or costings (maybe because they think they can re-use the tiddly one from the BPT; maybe because they are hoping to find that elusive Scottish smelter to outsource it to; or maybe because they plan to lump it all together into the lorry for processing in Holland or Belgium).

[pr100] 13/7/2020 13:49

Sorry you didn't understand "tunnel". These days it means pretty much the same as drift or adit and is probably easier to understand for most people.


Not sure why you are amused by my perception of the tunnel. Anyone can take a tour:



But if you know different regarding the tunnel dimensions, I'm all ears.

[5chipper] 13/7/2020 10:01

To which we all say in unison:

"F##k off then"

[glenalmond] 13/7/2020 07:19

On my only tour of the full length of the tunnel

😄 Really? Do you mean adit? When was that then? Who were you with?

approx 10 or 12 feet high and wide, narrowing to considerably less in several places 😆

[steelwatch] 12/7/2020 21:20

Looks to me like it's been dealt with, otherwise the clerk of the works would have reported so surely?

[pr100] 12/7/2020 12:43

steel watch, I know the dimensions of the machines. What I don't know is how much clearance they need and what other space requirements are for eg services, pedestrians, passing vehicles, etc. I assume they haven't allowed for two vehicles to pass each other, even though they have only one portal.

On my only tour of the full length of the tunnel, my guesstimate was that it was approx 10 or 12 feet high and wide, narrowing to considerably less in several places. But I can't find the definitive tunnel plan to confirm that.

Nor can I find the planning application for the enlarged tunnel which the planning authority said was mandatory. Maybe it has been removed from public view.

[glenalmond] 11/7/2020 19:47

Masher 😄 👍 😎 🍺