TUD Vs SEA Metallurgy | | CS600L | Mitchell | Upper Kerr | Iron Cap | Sulfurets | Deep Kerr | IronCap L |
| Head Grade | | | | | | | |
| Cu | 0.57 | 0.2 | 0.62 | 0.25 | 0.26 | 0.64 | 0.56 |
| Au | 0.81 | 0.73 | 0.24 | 0.57 | 0.59 | 0.46 | 0.35 |
| Ag | | | | | | | |
| Concentrate | | | | | | | |
| Grade Cu | 29.6 | 24.9 | 27.8 | 24.6 | 26.9 | 25.2 | 24.8 |
| Grade Au | 33 | 66.25 | 5.48 | 46.2 | 45.2 | 13.67 | 28.05 |
| Grade Ag | | | | | | | |
| Recovery Cu | 88.1 | 84.5 | 83 | 85.1 | 78 | 89.7 | 90.1 |
| Recovery Au | 63.8 | 60.8 | 41.8 | 60.4 | 52.9 | 62.3 | 62.5 |
Comparing the recent results from Tudor press release to the Seabridge pre-feas. Cu grades and recovery of the CS-600 lower results exceed all Seabridge deposits. Au grades and recoveries places grade in the middle of all seabridge deposits with recovery comparable to the higher end of Seabridge deposits.
What Seabridge has had is the benefit of nearly a decade to figure out the processing methods of the 'floatation tails' and many many additional met tests completed, which I beleive Tudor is in the process of completing. If anything this proves Goldstorm/CS600L to be superior or on par metallurgically with any of the Seabridge deposits. Another one Rudy's talking points disproven.