Sue's Blog

Saturday, January 27, 2007

A mistake or a sign of things to come?

CVRD the company that purchased INCO has an interesting philosophy that Labradorians may be interested in.
Currently they are in contract negotiations with workers in Sudbury and:
Below you will find a Sue's Blog post from last week.
Now the Resource Invester Online

says this:
CVRD is in the detailing phase for the plant at Voisey's Bay and is considering investments at the Thompson mine in Manitoba, as well as PT Inco in Indonesia.

This quote from a story in the Northern Life

Management from Xstrata and CVRD made it clear after they successfully completed historic deals to take over Falconbridge and Inco, respectfully, last summer and fall they would work together to cut costs at Sudbury operations, said Grylls.

Most of the speculation has been over lowering transportation costs and processing ore at facilities closer to their respective mines.

Will CVRD look to Labrador as a possibility for the processing facility?

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't get what you mean. There is a smelter going in long Harbour.

Why would they need a second one in Labrador?

Sue Kelland-Dyer said...

It's not what I mean it's what CVRD said.

Anonymous said...

Comment for anonymous: Heaven forbid a company would ever ponder such an eventuality as actually processing Labrador ore in, of all places, Labrador. Surely, the sky would fall.

Sue Kelland-Dyer said...

Here Here - what would happen if the Labrador Party took 4 seats - now then there would be action - for if the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is going to rely on the Big Land for resources - surely it should have real representation.
It's possible that 4 seats could be the Official Oppostion - now then imagine that. Oh my that would be justice.

Anonymous said...

Before IP and Sue go bonkers, just remember, I never said it was impossible/unthinkable or anything else like it.

I just asked what in CVRD's statement would make Sue think they would build a SECOND smelter/refinery in this province?

Apparently, there isn't a thing since she hasn't quoted it. Sue just posted something else that says the company mentioned Labrador very little.

Sue Kelland-Dyer said...

read the quote again - I didn't say it apparently CVRD did...
Labrador has always been the best place for the smelter - and a great customer for hydropower...

Anonymous said...

Sue, CVRD said no such thing.

They talked about reducing costs and building refineries closer to mines generally. You are putting the other part in.

Right now they are shipping ore to Sudbury. That's costly in a bunch of ways.

Pretty soon they will have a smelter in Long Harbour which is closer to Voisey's Bay and less costly than shipping to Sudbury.

So let me ask again, Sue: where did you get the idea that CVRD is even thinking about Labrador, because it isn't in anything you've presented so far?

Sue Kelland-Dyer said...

Now the Resource Invester Online

says this:
CVRD is in the detailing phase for the plant at Voisey's Bay....


For the Plant at Voisey's Bay???Which plant might they have been talking about to the Resource Invester Online????

Anonymous said...

So you think there will be a plant at Voisey's Bay.

Based on one reporter's misinterpretation of where the smelter is in relation to the physical plant (mine).

Do you have anything from CVRD itself?

Sue Kelland-Dyer said...

Here's another one from the Toronto Star...
And the company has a study underway on building a processing plant for Voisey's Bay in Labrador. In a deal with the Newfoundland and Labrador government, Inco committed to build the plant by 2011, and CVRD has said it is trying to speed that up.

Sue Kelland-Dyer said...

and another from the Edmonton Journal...


CVRD is in the detailing phase for the plant at Voisey’s Bay

Sue Kelland-Dyer said...

and the CBC

CVRD is in the detailing phase for the plant at Voisey's Bay

Anonymous said...

You really should make it more clear when you are quoting. You run stuff together and it looks like the words are yours until you go read the original and discover you were quoting.

The Star story says "for" Voisey's Bay, not "at".

The others are similar in talking about a plant without making it clear where.

If you checked the original release from the company you'd see it merely mentions a study is underway on a processing plant. But there is nothing, not a word anywhere that makes it even appear like the company is looking at a second site in Labrador or is considering moving from Long Harbour to Labrador.

Nothing.