RE:PEA Question
I don't think the two tables are developed using the same gold cut-off limits, strip ratios, and pit size assumptions. I think the table on pages 10 and 11 is developed as an input to the PEA, while Table 2 on page 3 is the optimized analysis which results from the study. In between, the pit boundaries would have been optimized, resulting in changes to the amount of ore which will need to be mined and processed. In particular, the use of heap leaching in the design would have resulted in a lower grade cut-off being adopted and more ore being included within the pit boundary (offset by much lower recovery rates from the heap leach resulting in an overall reduction in the recovered gold estimates). Also, I think there is some duplication in Table 2. The NR notes that "The loaded carbon from the Heap Leach facility will be sent to the Mill facility for gold recovery." As such, I assume that those tonnes are included in both the Millfeed and the Heap Leach numbers as that material will need to be run through both processes. If you'd like a more informed explanation, you might try sending the question to Chris Haldane in investor relations at Marathon and seeing what he comes back with as an answer.