Revolver Resources Holdings Ltd

 
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Here is an investment I have just made in a miner north of Atherton.  @Sulla1 is this the miner you were speaking of which could rail load on the tablelands?

https://www.onmarket.com.au/offers/revolver-resources/

Sponsored advertisement

  Sulla1 Chief Commissioner

The tonnages just aren't really rail friendly. If the mine is able to produce 70,000-tonnes of copper ore per annum, that's one 27 wagon train per week with a container transload at Arriga or Mareeba. It could be enough for a rail haul, but I'd be surprised if any rail operator would go chasing that sort of tonnage, plus source suitable mid-axle load locomotives - Watco and Aurizon are the only operators with equipment suitable for working west of Cairns, and that's only if QR reapproves the line for 15.75-tonne axle load locomotives (this situation might be about to change though with the possibility of Progress offering a new mid-axle load lease fleet). In the modern Queensland experience a rail haul volume in excess of 1-million tonnes seems to becoming the bare minimum for the sort of rail upgrades that would be needed these days for remote corners of the QR network. Remember, there are multi-million tonne coal hauls on road in Central Queensland driving beside closed branch lines.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia
Remember, there are multi-million tonne coal hauls on road in Central Queensland driving beside closed branch lines.
Sulla1

Anyone else see an issue with that at all?
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE
Remember, there are multi-million tonne coal hauls on road in Central Queensland driving beside closed branch lines.

Anyone else see an issue with that at all?
bevans
Yes, but mine life, willingness by the rail operator to carry some of the capital cost etc. Most of these large tonnage truck hauls are parralleling lines out of use since the 80's or 90's and even then were nothing but light gauge lines. May as well as the trucks hauling these multi million dollar haulages are following an empty easement.

The road coal haulage in the greater Moura area mostly truck haul following a few closed lines to a load station, then railed to port. The roads in that area are lightly used by other traffic and wouldn't qualify as a risk to the public. The roads are also partly funded by the trucking company as in Qld it used to be once one user exceeds X% of the total traffic they pay towards the road maintainence. While I would like to see the operating lines reopened to the mine gate, for many of these it just doesn't make alot of sense to do so, especially if they are mining short mine life ore bodies and costantly moving.
  bevans Site Admin

Location: Melbourne, Australia

The road coal haulage in the greater Moura area mostly truck haul following a few closed lines to a load station, then railed to port. The roads in that area are lightly used by other traffic and wouldn't qualify as a risk to the public. The roads are also partly funded by the trucking company as in Qld it used to be once one user exceeds X% of the total traffic they pay towards the road maintainence. While I would like to see the operating lines reopened to the mine gate, for many of these it just doesn't make alot of sense to do so, especially if they are mining short mine life ore bodies and costantly moving.
RTT_Rules

Mining companies can partly fund a road but but not the rail line and the government refuses to fund the rail line?

Sounds a lot like Australia.
  RTT_Rules Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Dubai UAE

The road coal haulage in the greater Moura area mostly truck haul following a few closed lines to a load station, then railed to port. The roads in that area are lightly used by other traffic and wouldn't qualify as a risk to the public. The roads are also partly funded by the trucking company as in Qld it used to be once one user exceeds X% of the total traffic they pay towards the road maintainence. While I would like to see the operating lines reopened to the mine gate, for many of these it just doesn't make alot of sense to do so, especially if they are mining short mine life ore bodies and costantly moving.
Mining companies can partly fund a road but but not the rail line and the government refuses to fund the rail line?

Sounds a lot like Australia.
bevans
Road is funded as percentage of tonnage moved as its moved.

The trouble with rail lines as even under govt ownership large upfront capital was usually required by the mine. In some cases yes the govt funded the project to get a mine project up and running, Rolleston comes to mind and 20 years later its still there moving 10mtpa or more by now.

Rail company's (private or govt) often only fund the capex when there are alot of certainities and minimum take or pay contracts. For example the Hellyer mine spur off EBR was fully funded by the private railway for a minimum contract guarentee by a company who had been using the railway for years so there was some history and the mine life was well known and the expected profitabilty very high.

Problem for coal is that some coal mines are nothing more than a quarry, staffed by 100% contractors, minimal fixed infrastructure and suppliers all on a months notice of unmployment should the coal price drop. If the mine has a 30 year life span and proving + millions of tonnes, rail is usually the prefered option.

Also note of all the examples I'm aware of we are talking lucky to be 50km of road haulage and in most cases less than 25km.

The Qld govt forced Cement Aust to rail their limestone (not same as larger limestone clay haulage to same plant) onto rail when the kiln was started in late 2000's, however the road was upgraded after and within 10 years truck replaced rail as the route was shorter and I suspect rail wasn't that keen on it and probably end of life for the wagons.

Sounds alot like almost every other country in the world.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, RTT_Rules

Display from: