RE:Narrowing down the cast of charactersSo mdjbrown, the licencing info you've provided states that VG licence authorizes ore stacking on the HLP for
up to 39,154 tpd for 275 days or a maximum of 29,500 tpd over a 12 month period. I don't see this licence as having a daily stacking limit so could VG theoretically stack 50,000 tpd one day and then 10,000 tpd the next as long as they don't exceed the 275 day or 12 month average daily limits? I'm not suggesting that's what they did but rather if they did so would that violate the licencing?
One of the major rumors that surfaced shortly after the slide was that the company stacked too much ore and they stacked the ore too high and that was perceived to have caused / triggerred the slide. Yet when you look at the company MDA documents for each of the quarters in 2023 and Q1 in 2024, which includes the ore Throughput (stacked) ore tpd, the company reportedly only stacked an average of 24,615 tpd in 2023 with the highest amound of ore stacked in Q2 2023 at 27,613 tpd. Here's the numbers from the 2023 MDA documents:
Victoria Gold Corp. | Financials (vgcx.com) 2023 Throughput (stacked) ore tpd:
Q1 - 23,275 tpd
Q2 - 27,613 tpd
Q3 - 25,236 tpd
Q4 - 22,340 tpd
2023 - Average Throughput (stacked) ore 24,615 And in 2024 Q1 they stacked 21,917 tpd 2024 Q2 stacked ore numbers are not out yet but given the previous 5 quarters of stacked ore at well under the allowable 29,500 tpd, the overstacking allegation appears to be untrue. And based on the lower production results, the low stack rates in 2023 and Q1 2024 would sure seem to support that over stacking did not occur as is being alleged.
So if VG wasn't over stacking the pad then were they perhaps stacking the ore too high (as was also alleged)? Well, I'm not sure how that is possible since the stacking augers only go so high and even if they did somehow stack the ore higher, did they exceed the allowed 29,500 tpd (based on a 12 month stacking schedule)? Well based on the stacking figures from the previous 5 quarters I highly don't that was the case.
So mdjbrown, my whole point about needing more facts as to who is really responsible for the June 24th slide because right now the villian here is apparently the company, yet when you take a closer look at things, the responsibilty allegations are starting to get debunked, For example, the initially expected environmental damage was perceived to be catastrophic but yet the water samples to date are saying otherwise. Now the overstacking allegations are looking like they too are unfounded.
The company is still onsite for a reason and YTG is allowing this, why? My guess is because this event may have nothing to do with overstacking or negligence on the part of the company when a thorough investigation is finally completed. From the licencing information you've provided, as long as VG was doing what they were suppose to do and were stacking like they have been for the past 5 month, then how are they liable?
I still want to know what that dozer operator was doing on the slope / cliff side of the In-Heap Pond at 5:30 am. There's still too many questions and not enough answers.