Ann: Adriatic Metals Corporate Presentation, page-124

Here is the problem, you are challenging my revenue model without understanding how mines generate revenue. This may be why your analysis starts and ends with in-situ metal equivalent values. If you want to challenge my resource estimates or revenue models.... Please, share yours!

Again, a trade off study is necessary to understand the optimal balance between CapEx, OpEx and recoveries.

I can't continue this discussion if you are not open to a little bit of research. I suggest starting with the Hod Maden feasibility study, again a good comp to what we have here at Rupice.

Hod Maden ~10Mt @ 9 g/T Au and 1.4% Cu.

Here are the relevant bits:



p. 104 Bulk sulphide flotation with no fine grinding:



p.8-9 flow sheet maximizing gold recoveries. Requires fine grinding:



Ultimately, they decided to re-grind to maximize gold recoveries to 77%. This for a deposit that averages 9 g/t Au. But *despite* fine grinding, they are *still* letting 23% of the gold (or about 2 g/T Au) go to tails and will consider leaching to recover the rest of the gold later in mine life.

Here again, Rupice is averaging roughly 2 g/t Au, *BUT* most of it at depth within the high grade core. The surface mineralization is much lower grade so I don't, for the life of me, understand why anyone would be so stupid to pay the CapEx up front to recover 40% more of the low grade gold early in mine life. The cost of capital is high for a junior. Fast-tracking development and achieving rapid payback is *essential*.

Long section below shows early ore is low in gold concentration: