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

Eagle Royalties Ltd T.ER


Primary Symbol: C.ER Alternate Symbol(s):  ERYTF

Eagle Royalties Ltd. is engaged in holding royalty assets. The Company holds royalty interests in approximately 35 mineral exploration projects in western Canada. These projects are being explored for commodities that include gold, silver, critical metals, uranium, rare-earth elements, diamonds and industrial minerals. The Company’s portfolio includes the flagship AurMac (McQuesten) Royalty that overlies a portion of Banyan Gold Corp’s gold discovery at their AurMac Property located in the central Yukon Territory. Its Schott's Lake Royalty, George Lake Royalty and Knife Lake Royalty are situated in Saskatchewan, Canada. The Eskay Creek Royalty is situated in British Columbia, Canada. Its other royalties include Acacia, Adamant, Albert Lake, Axis Lake, BC Mas, Beaven, Black Diamond, Black Water Regional, Brownell Lake, Cathro, Coyote Creek, Cup Lake, Elsiar, East Goldfield, Fort a la Corne, Dianne Lake, Hanson North, Hot Punch, Hunter Basin, Manson Bay South, Kalum and more.


CSE:ER - Post by User

Comment by goldhunter11on Sep 14, 2017 11:08am
121 Views
Post# 26695389

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:ER New Resource Estimate

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:ER New Resource Estimate Stockmaster,
Thanks for pointing out the comments by Curvature which I did not see (may be he's on my ignored list, lol).

As indicated, I am not a mining engineer, but I do have a basic knowledge about mining, open-pit, strip ratio, etc...and for the case at hand we should include "revenue factor" as well, since the NR did mention the current factor of 1.0 compared to 0.5 in the previous RE (the one that produced 1.6MozAu). Of course, the intention of my original post on the new RE (the current one that shows 1.3Moz) was to indicate the (unnecessary) conservatism used by management  in trying to de-risk the Clearwater project, without going through the all technical details on how the strip ratio was decided, etc.

For Clearwater, the overburden is minimal, since some of the Au ore is right on the surface (see some of the pictures they have on the Web page). It's the "waste" rock (cut-off grade is an important parameter) that they will need to consider when they play around with various Whittle shells.

It's also relevant to compared the important parameters used in the previous case (1.6Moz) and this latest estimate (i.e. we want apple-to-apple comparison). Previously, the strip ratio was ~28:1 (depth 300m), now it a tighter configuartion at ~12:1 (depth 150m). In my opinion, it would be informative for management to explain the reasons for choosing different parameters, using layman language, so that shareholders would have a better understanding the reason why things were done in a certain way. We need concise information, right to the point, not general stuff that does not enlighten anybody.

Another point worth mentioning is the "revenue factor". Perhaps, management can explain a bit more on this? In my opinion, this is part of the strategy. Management should give us a heads-up that they want to start out with a basic case (the current pit configuaration with1.3Moz and revenue factor of 1.0) with a few additional cases with other scenario for say different PoG (US$1250 used in the RE compared to the current US$1325). With an increasing PoG perhaps they would want to relax the conservatism (to mine lower grade ore) to get more Au (the pit can get larger and larger if favourable sonditions prevail). Note that they already has one option available (1.6Moz with 28:1 strip ratio and revenue factor 0.5, don't remember what PoG they used in that one).

Hopefully, we will see some explanation when they file on SEDAR the NI-101 report (within 45 days). If they are not in that report, management should have options looked at when they do the PEA.

Cheers,
GH
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>