Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Tudor Gold Corp V.TUD

Alternate Symbol(s):  TDRRF

Tudor Gold Corp. is a Canada-based precious and base metals exploration and development company. The Company develops its 60% owned Treaty Creek gold project, located in northwestern British Columbia. The Company's Treaty Creek property covers an area of approximately 17,918 hectares.


TSXV:TUD - Post by User

Post by Sasha11on May 23, 2023 11:12am
226 Views
Post# 35460227

Refractory gold not easy or cheap to get. See Barrick MRE

Refractory gold not easy or cheap to get. See Barrick MRE I’m re-posting some of my earlier comments (see highlight below) as its been flooded over with disinformation by the same Tudor insiders who don’t seem to want people asking questions.   All I’m saying is properly support your claims, and for all you would be investors do your research.  That includes reviewing Barrick’s March 17, 2023 Technical Report on the Pueblo Verijo (PV) refractory gold mine, which is a similar type of project to Treaty Creek.  Compare that to the Tudor MRE (mineral resource estimate) of April 2023.  Both reports are available on-line.  Tudor has a much lower gold grade and higher sulfur to gold ratio in the feed than PV, and no infrastructure.  Don’t buy the story the grade is getting better at Treaty Creek, good if it is, but its the overall published Treaty Creek MRE that’s relevant, or should I say irrelevant.  

Here is a direct quote from page 172 of the Barrick Technical Report;

“Given the processing costs are dependent on the sulfur grade and recoveries vary with material type, the cut-off grade for a block with an average sulfur grade of 8.3% can vary from approximately 1.27 g/t Au (equivalent) to 1.41 g/t Au (equivalent).”

Note that this is a cut-off grade for a project where most of the capital was paid for with 5 g/t gold during several years of initial production.  The remaining PV deposit has a listed grade of 2.2 g/t Au and 13 g/t Ag.   You need over 5 g/t Ag to even consider making silver into a gold equivalent in this type of mineralogy, so it is extremely misleading to count both silver and copper at Treaty Creek.  Now on a previous post they say the can drop the ounces to less than 8 million with a 1 g/t cut-off Au eqiv cut-off.  Getting closer, but even then the grade is too low. My opinion is the Treaty Creek project can’t work based on the assumptions they provide, certainly no where near 30 million ounces.  That is the reason they’ve delayed their PEA for years.   Redo the Treaty Creek MRE to be realistic, and then do a PEA.  To make it work Tudor needs a substantial resource over a 1.5 g/t Au cut-off grade, and not the bogus gold equivalent number they keep providing.  You can either believe Tudor’s numbers or believe Barrick.

<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>