RE:RE:RE:RE:News I think that I see what you're saying Tinhos. The question is "Is the grade of this new ore higher, or is the ore, in the aggregate, simply more likely to have profitably extractable mineralization in it." The words of the NR run as follows:
"The new material is significantly more mineralized."
(In the necessary Bayhorse legalese, material = (I think) "ore.")
My immediate interpretation of the words "more mineralized" was "higher- or richer in grade." But I may be wrong in that interpretation, and on reflection the language is possibly ambiguous. (Perhaps the answer is even that both interpretations may be correct at the same time? If more ore is meeting the cut-off, that might also imply that the average grade would tend to be higher.)
By the way, in relation to what you're saying, Graeme in his Feb. 2018 interview with SmallCapPower comes to mind:
"Historically, at a 7.5-ounce cut-off, there were 160,000 tons at 20 oz/t for about 3.2 million ounces (according to the 1981 Herdrick report). By using this ore-sorter which we've just acquired and put into operation, we can upgrade the material and lower the cut-off grade. So the cut-off grade is now officially 2.5 oz/t, which should increase the historic resource from 160,000 tons to 500,000 tons, and take the historic resource in ounces from about 3.2 to about 7.5."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0bkA6EzA4U
This is obviously a case where the aggregate tonnage which is considered mineralized for the purpose of profitable mining goes up (i. e. more ounces), even though the average grade doesn't go up.