GREY:PGDIF - Post by User
Comment by
Silverwhereon Jul 20, 2016 2:21am
96 Views
Post# 25067661
RE:RE:RE:Kim-C
RE:RE:RE:Kim-C
My basic math was a feeble attempt to show the lowest of lowballs focusing on the additional 3.3% mine life extension only. Yup, that waters down the plus factors way too much.
The positive chain reaction points you’ve itemized in your reply post (which I’ve read 6 or 7 times now & will keep reading till I can recite half of it I hope, lol), well, now you are describing some serious “hidden” value for any/all value investors.
The sum of your points could potentially add say 5 to 15% (who knows?) more $$$green, anyway, way more than the 3.3% low lowball. The market does NOT see this hidden value. Not yet anyway... but they will when the future numbers get revised upwards.
Very happy to be in before those knowledgeable Value investors arrive. And then there are the next buses behind their Value Buses shuttling the in crowd in for this show. Fashionably late? No thanks, let’s take our early bus instead.
ekim wrote: Pretty simplified.
250K tonnes of Kim-C probably end up being worth more per tonne then CH-7. So that would defer CH-7 mining for another 1/3rd year.
250K tonnes that was waste material is now ore material..so your strip ratio goes down.
Strip ratio goes down..your average operating cost per tonne goes down.
It affects many areas of the economics....all good.
IMO, the biggest gain will be in the geotech assumed slope angle based on very, very little information. If you plotted all the slope angle's used in all the mines in the world...the one they chose would probably be in the bottom 5%.
That is not being optimistic...whereas a PEA is supposed to be optimistic.
They could have used a higher slope angle and put a cavaet in it that more work needs to be done to get the geotech to a PFS level of study.
LONG...PGD
EKIM