Regarding your concerns about our coverage of the Neptune story in particular, we feel that the magnitude of the project as well as its geographic location make it of particular interest to our readers. You say our story of Jan 30 was “incredibly positive,” yet the story only details a new reserve figure. We do not refer to ore reserves (although we do refer to stripping ratios in terms of waste-to-ore) nor do we call Colomac a mine. We do, however, refer to construction being on schedule “despite arctic temperatures.”
While we agree that the increase in reserves is a positive development, we would not agree that the resulting story is “incredibly” positive.
As for providing objective accounts as opposed to carrying mere public relations reports, a more detailed story in the subsequent issue of The Northern Miner (Feb 6) points out quite graphically the problems Neptune faces with Colomac — the winter road, the short construction season, the remote location, the high cost of fuel, the low grade of material, the tenuous financing arrangements and Neptune’s lack of mine operating expertise.
The Northern Miner does carry a lot of “positive” news because we do not believe that only bad news is worth reporting. By the same token, however, we have given ample coverage to stories we suspect you would call “negative.” Some recent examples are the Tartan Lake and Ketza River mines and, indeed, Neptune’s problems as reported in our issues of Feb 20 and March 13.
We do try to be the first with the news, but if you expect us to be prescient about which projects will succeed and which will fail, you may well be disappointed. As individuals, our staff members sometimes have opinions about the viability of certain projects, but we try to keep such opinions out of our stories. There are enough people making predictions in this business already. We try to present the facts as clearly and as timely as possible and let our readers make their own decisions.
]]>
Be the first to comment on "The Northern Miner’s role"