Jack's latest analysis is flawed. Company stated they would start with the lowest grade first. If you are saying this first cut (585) should have been 15 g/t then you are implying the whole project is projected to be at a minimum 15g/t. The tech report has this project grading 13.6 g/t. This is a cherry picked analysis. This is one of those write-ups that looks intriguing at first than when you apply 4th grade math to their argument you see it is written with an agenda and not based on scientific method. That cap lamp must have been squeezing your head a little too tight for those last 30 years.
Jack is short.. and therefore biased.
He is old and retired and out of touch without work.
He might be suffering memory loss.
I would not pay any attention to his comment.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Reviewed the tech report and feasibility study on the deposit itself. So the vast majority of the deposit (90%) is supposed to be according to Snowden - the optimistic ones - averaging 4g/Tonne. The skew of the gold is supposed to be 96% -- though I think its likely higher. This deposit is going to be all about finding the rich mineralized areas and letting underground exploration guide future mining. So I think its both -- I think most of the bulk sample is going to be poorly graded, maybe even below expectations. The rich areas, however, may actually be much better than expected. Would not be surprised if there is 10-20 tonnes that contains 1000 oz of gold within the bulk sample.
Try to wrap your heads around this -- last November they estimated that 25% of the gold ( 1.5 million ounces) was contained in less than 3% of the total millage. If anything this underground drilling has made this look conservative in both total mineral reserves and skew. So as things get better defined, expect a few million ounces to be added but all the extra is contained within a few hundred thousand tonnes of material.
So Jack's right -- there's a lot of junky, relatively low grade gold mineral (3-5g/tonne). There's also some amazing 50g-500g/tonne areas that are going to make the deposit worth mining.
From reviewing the recent drill results, it looks like there may be additional vein structures to the East beyond Cleopatra and in domain 20.
You are definitely correct in your assessment. They will clearly mine out the highest probable sectors that contain the 20g/T average grades FIRST. There are new techiques on the horizon within 1-2 years that may be very useful here.
I think with the rabid controversy they will need to slow down the program and do more drilling to first find and prove that there are more of these additional bonanza veins like Cleopatra before they proceed with a general mine concept. Funding is clearly on hold under any condition.
In the meantime, they need to figure out if the B.C. government will allow them to just dump all the tailings and waste into the lake. This is a big hurdle in my mind.
Block model says 13 g/t or so. The problem is that the crosscut of the bulk sample is only intersecting stopes on 1/4 to 1/3 of length or so.
I don't know, the mor I read the more confusing it gets. I'll stay away then. Seems there really is no deposit and if Jack is wrong then because of reasons that will still make the Strathcone analysis just more relevant still resulting in a significant reduction in grade.
Keep it simple. When bulk sample process is finished it must be finalized in company press-release. At the same time, this case already got big exposure. It will be virtually impossible to use incorrect and/or misleading information in that future release. It means that situation will be clear after that release; it should be soon enough.
If someone wants to try water before the release, then do it based on general investment ideas: big uncertainty, high risk and, possibly, big reward. Do you have room in your portfolio for this speculative (again, it means buying before the release) step? If yes, then just buy it and cross your fingers. If not, then wait for the release.
Every portfolio is individual, and every investor has own tolerance for risk. Again, it was very valuable discussion and I sincerely appreciate all contributions, especially coming from guys with geological background.