I'd like to see Briscoe's plan for getting into production in four years. My guess is that, after careful study, it probably would make sense.
What doesn't make sense is to declare the plan absurd while having no actual knowledge of how it would work.
Someone has said that Gunnison will have taken ten years to get into production. I wonder what the differences might be between that project and the Hay Mountain shallow ore (if it is found)? What difference in tools, in logisitcs, in rock characteristics, etc. Are they planning blasting at Gunnison? What are the methods of excavation compared to what's projected at Hay? What's the history of the Vermeer Terrain Leveler in actual use? What differences might there be regarding timelines for equipment delivery? In slow times, it's a lot more likely not to get stuck in a queue waiting for something. On and on.
Point is detailed knowledge of each project would be necessary before saying Hay could not be gotten into production in four years.
More than once I have seen production processes reduced by 50% or more by the recognition of a bottleneck and the application of a fix, perhaps by use of a new technology. Spend some money to get a great reduction in process time that justifies the capital expense. It has happened many times, and could happen with JB's Hay Mtn. plan. We should know more. A lot of hasty conclusions are being broadcast.
This sort of reduction in length of process is at the heart of Andrew Mueller's plan to mine the North Pipes. I've spoken with him about that and am (tentatively) convinced that his new horizontal bore technology is a time-saving breakthrough.
The critics here are pretending to know a lot more than they actually do.
The investors in the Philippines will have the expertise to judge for themselves.
Before mocking the Vermeer Terrain Leveler it would be good to see some of JB's numbers and know where he got them. That machine now has a history of use. We should know something about that before concluding that JB is trying to deceive us.
