Nanisivik Mine — A Profitability Comparison of Actual Mining to the Expectations of the Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract 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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".