RE:RE:RE:Being played Sasha, I really don't think you have any idea what you are talking about. The pit-constrained MI grade of 0.72 AuEq is fine; many profitable mines run at less than that. However, if you think that the economics of this deposit is such that it needs a higher grade, what do you think is reasonable?
If you they raise the cutoff grade to 0.60 g/t, the pit-constrained MI resource is 335 million tonnes @ 0.95 AuEq. That's still over 10 million ounces of gold!
How about a 0.80 g/t cutoff grade? Your pit-constrained MI resource is now 192 million tonnes @ 1.13 g/t AuEq for 7 million ounces!
I repeat. Anyone who says this deposit is too low a grade is either full of sh!t, or needs to go to engineering or gelogy school. Please don't peddle garbage here; read the technical report.
And note, these figures are all based on the maiden resource. As 2021 drilling has demonstrated, the deposit is increasing in grade as they drill N/NE. The economics are only getting better as they further delineate the resource. The eventual Treaty Creek PFS will clearly demonstrate a world class sized deposit. Stay tuned folks.
Sasha11 wrote: OK Rockport- For clarification Tudor have very low gold grade + very low silver grade + very low Cu grade = marginal total gold equivalent grade, which is all they ever really report. Its only marginal if the economics and metallurgy are perfect to upgrade and separate these metals. If not it is uneconomic. This is a high sulphide system so likely processing very challenged esp in this location; like Seabridge KSM (which I got involved with). Except Seabridge has better grades and positive economic study, but no buyer and lanquishing share price for the past 10 years. That is because the risk is still too high! Tudor should stop drilling and let the shareholders know what they really have, either a high grade zone worth pursuing, or just a large area of anomolous background gold equivalent.