2021Gamble wrote: Reasonably intelligent post, worthy of a response.
First. Yes....I am good at math, accounting, marketing and micro and macro economics to name of few from my university education.
Second "course" to "very course" gold is much more important than most are giving credit to - and would be worthy of further discussion if you so desire - because imo, this gold high particle size, is part of what makes the gold in the stockpile, both highly valuable, and easily claimable. There is a reason this was included in multiple press releases!!
This Course (100-1000 micron), very course (>1000 micron) gold...as detailed in the Bulk Sample results, as confirmed in the April 27 2021 press release, was made available by two crushings, to achieve only sub 100 micron feedstock (3 crushings as it was -2mm from the 2019 assays) and that would be a 3rd crushing if you want to be overly specific.
the result included no "cleaning" per see, but simple dry separation - as was detailed in the press release, and as confirmed by the company (at least to the best of my knowledge)
as far as 13.7 grams per ton not representing gold in the stockpile .... well, ...it is called grams per ton for a reason. Yes, it is an 'anticipated' recovery as detailed in the press release, but only for the H grade portion of the stockpile - as was very clearly detailed in the PR
Coarse, and Very Course are by their very definition higher grade cleaner material (as opposed to fine or very fine - which usually require washing, leaching etc etc....), and will as you correctly detail in your comment below, carry a higher than normal recovery rate. (ie. your comment that some gold is pretty clean going through a trommel) -> coarse and very course gold fit this bill.
so, that leads us to, high anomoly gold, present in (all 118) samples, at significant grade (23 of 118 samples >3 g/t, 3 of 18>34g/t; ), and repeated testing confirming coarse to very coarse gold grading.
So. you can't have it both ways. You can't on the one hand, claim the entire stockpile only has 1.47 g/t at only 62% recovery - and allow this to represent "volume of gold in the stockpile" (to quote you);
while at the same time, discounting that a portion of that same pile (ie 23 of 118 samples >3g/t), tested at 13.7 g with 77% recovery, and saying - it is in no way indicative of gold in the stockpile.
both numbers were obtained the same way, from representative samples, and both are representative of "volume of gold in the stockpile", for the % of the stockpile they represent.
I have thrown some "assumptions" out .... do you believe that 18.5% of the stockpile could be 13.7g/t based on those 118 samples?
I even went so far as to (agree with you) - add the assumption - to include 40% of the stockpile as "waste rock", with only 0.2 g/t.
so...lets ask you point blank to generate discussion
i added a L and a VH sample at 0.2g/t and 34 g/t, at a representative ratio of 40% and 1.5%. Do you agree, disagree, or want to modify those numbers?
I assumed a 50% recovery of the L, 40% total sample (which I entirely made up),and at only 0.2g/t Is that an acceptable assumption?
I assumed an 85% recovery of the VH, outlier portion, as it would likely be beyond "very course" and include a wayward nugget or two...but limited it to only 1.5% of the stockpile, even though 3 of the 118 samples; (2.5% were >=34g/t) Is that an acceptable assumption?
in the end...if is 25000 ton (although the company put that big ">" in front of the number
only the g/t for each portion, % of stockpile for each portion, and % recovery are variables.
my assumptions are 40/40/18.5/1.5
my assumptions are 50 , 62, 77, and 85, (with 62 and 77 being company provided)
i am assuming 0.2 for L and 34 for VH, with M and H being company provided.
which of the above 12 numbers (4 company provided) do you not agree with? Because in the end....that math as provided in detail...is the answer to the question all shareholders are looking for.
hopeful we can carry the conversation on constructively....
lets flip this to an "aggressive" assumption
Lets assume the stockpile turns out to be 35000 ton (using that big ">" and going up 40% in size)
Lets assume 20% L, 45% M; 30% H, and 5% VH
keep recoveries at 50, 62, 77, 85
grades; 0.2; 1.47; 13.7; 34 (despite the whopper 253.6 annomoly)
----------------
35000 x 20% x 50% x 0.2 = 700 g recovered
35000 x 45% x 62% x 1.47 = 14354 g recovered
35000 x 30% x 77% x 13.7 = 110764 g recovered
35000 x 5% x 85% x 34 = 50575 g recovered
--------------------
thats 176393 g recovered or 6222 oz = $11,199,975 at $1800 from 1 stockpile
that turns out to be over $1 per share in gold across 6 stockpiles.
I say again...it's only those 12 numbers - those are the variables....between the dashes above ...what is your estimate based on the information provided by the company and your "guestimates" thrown in?