RE: RE: GBN Blog - Now We Know The Truth LT - I can't argue the fact the widths at Seabee are wider than Roy Lloyd. But the 20+ year ore grade from Seabee has been 6 g/t whereas the one year average ore grade at Roy Lloyd was 11.3 g/t.
But on the other hand, it would be a complete fallacy on your part to suggest that the ore actually ends outside of this high grade vein. In fact, during the fourth quarter we saw the dilution from the long hole mining method producing 23,765 tonnes at an average grade of 8.84 g/t, which according to the longitudinal sections and mine plan was anticipated. As we seen in Q1, with the beginnnings of the shrinkage mining method, 13,213 tonnes @13.88 g/t was produced. Following the narrower high grade vein produced less tonnes at a much higher average.
The fact that you leave out of your "Seabee" equation is the gold price. As, I believe you have suggested in the past, a reserve or resource is only a reserve or resource based on the gold price. Considering Seabee has mined out all of the ore to an average of 6 g/t I would ask you haven't they basically removed all the mineable ore? Whereby the operating cut-off grade alone at Roy Lloyd from the 2009 PFS Base Case Mining Factors chart on pg xii was 4.71 g/t, and, of course, the cut-off for the current resource estimate remains at 5 g/t.
Therefore, IMO, as the gold price rises, to $2000 and beyond, it becomes more feasible for a small start up producer, such as Golden Band, to mine lower grades of ore. Another factor is the mill tonnage. Are we talking 400 tpd or are we talking a more economically feasible 3000 tpd? I believe you are under estimating the possible scenarios.
The difference is that some investors look at todays performance and some investors look at the potential of future performance.