Novo Resources Corp T.NVO

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Petr'

[Fabrix72]

BuccaneerBob wrote:

HuberPeter wrote:

BuccaneerBob wrote:

HuberPeter wrote:

BuccaneerBob wrote:

Peter

I had no intention of reading the pea because they used the aisc of other miners, Australian miners if I recall, and Q says himself no one in Australia has mined Horizontal deposits before. So they have no clue what the aisc is going to be. But thanks for reading it and posting your points.

 

Comments on your points:

 

The deposit dips to 80m under overbudern not the 65m I had been estimating based on one of their drawings. So even worse.

 

Fresh start in year 1 in minor amounts, not year 2. Will they be permitted to mine even minor amounts without the fresh permit? I doubt it if its acid generating which it is.

 

They have 6 yrs of reserves/resources. Why would the market give it any kind of p/e multiple? If the mineralization continues further out is it under even more than 80m of overburden? We know that 3 km thataway its under 500m of overburden as they drilled a deep hole in 2016??

 

This stuff:

 

- 0.5 m samples through the mineralised zones (nominal 20 kg sample)

• sampling from 2 m above and below the mineralised zones

• RC chip logging

• mineralised material spotters to control the mining process

• face mapping to assist control and visual identification of the mineralised zones.

 

Forget it, its too demanding, too expensive and too onerous for a commercial operation. 

 

"Plan once went badly in the pants.”  Lol, you got that right Werner. I bet hes wearing a diaper lately.

 

"I assume with about 1000 drills.” I didnt know Germans had a sense of humour:)

 

Inferred grade: Why would anyone assume the inferred grade is higher than the indicated grade as per Crux. Wishful thinking.

 

"My risk profile has changed dramatically. 20% investment - 80% speculation". There is hope for you Werner. At least you are seeing the red flags now. I suppose the question is “ wheres the upside”, and are there better risk reward stocks out there than this pos run by people who wont even tell their shareholders the grade and go to extreme lengths to hide it.

 

Finally, dont count on sorters to save the day. They are a fairytale. No company uses them as the primary means of extracting gold. They are bolt ons for specific issues.

 

Bucc

 

 

@aisc / Cash costs: it's not possible to take Economic numbers as you like in a PEA. Some grade of certainty (+/- 35%) has to be validated. What you need to do is use others costs as a guideline but incorporate your own estimated costs as much as possible which I dont think they did. No 2 mines are the same. Different costs, different grades, different types of mineralization and processing methods. Here there is no comparable in Australia as Q says himself as no one else is trying to mine a horizontal milles feuilles cake. The difference in grade alone between nvo and comparables mean different aiscs. Add to that nvo does not have a good handle on even insitu grade let alone headgrade or % dilution. In 2014? they estimated grade at 1.47 gm? and now its much higher insitu.

 

@fresh air: you are right. Less in q1. Don't know  know how to handle. Well, that means the mining stops if they dont have the permit.

@depth: most is about 50m. Even 50m to extract 2 or 4 layers with waste on top, between and under is no fun. There will be much more dilution than at surface. And it needs to be drill and blasted also. Then supposedly assayed as per above protocols. Imagine how that will slow everything down if they need to sample and get assays back before they start digging here there and everywhere.

@inferred grade difference overall:
most of it is referred to fresh oxide. 2,7 g/t indicated; 2,9% inferred. Not much difference ;) Oxide and fresh combined: indicated 2.1 gm, inferred 3.2 gm. Thats a big difference.

@multiple:
Novo is not only producer. Without mill they traded also about 400m cad. But now they have to prove some kind of profitability; otherwise it will be very hard. The mill is worth metal scrap value or a fraction if its to be sold off and moved. Taylor said the market cap it was trading at prior to mill acquistion was out of line with compabales based on reserves and he was right. The market has bought into the 14,000 km2 story which is just another fairytale.

Bucc

peter 

 

 

 

 

@aisc
just speculation from you. Decisive is sedar PEA filling 

From their PEA nr a week or so ago: Comparable production costs among the field of current and imminent Australian gold producers: LOM C1 cash costs of $702 (U.S.) per ounce and LOM all-in sustaining costs (AISC) of $974 (U.S.) per ounce.

So some comparables arent even in production. They are using estimated aiscs of other mines going into production, who in turn use estimates from others for their estimated aiscs.

@grade history
2014 was much less resource in maiden. Rarely high grade fresh ore. Now are 435k oz fresh high grade. Therefore I have no doubt on the validity of this numbers 

@ grade inferred vs indicated
Oxid Ore only 44k oz inferred at 1,8g/t; fresh 250k oz highgrade at 2.9 g/t. That clearly explains the difference. Difference in indicated fresh to inferred is only 0.2 g/t. Therefore I have no doubt on the validity of this numbers 

See the last table inferred vs indicated for both types.  https://www.juniorminingnetwork.com/junior-miner-news/press-releases/1226-tsx/nvo/61962-novo-files-updated-beatons-creek-technical-report-2.html

@fresh ore in y1
looked at Processing schedule again. No fresh ore in y1. At the end of y2 only 40kt. 

This is what you wrote: "oxide pit mining in Year 1, with initial operation in the northern Edwards area, the southern Grant’s Hill area and moving into the Central and Golden Crown area. Some minor amounts of fresh plant feed are mined at the base of most oxide pits." 

If you want to argue with yourself then go ahead.

@mill
yes, they have to prove profitability 

peter 

ps. Maybe  you should read the PEA ;)

Why? Its garbage as they are not using their own estmated costs for aisc so the conclusion is useless. 

Bucc