30.3 mt @ 1.70% cueq, page-77

I will reiterate that the Inferred Resource has lost copper grade at a higher cut-off, and has (as peter says) gained any copper equivalent grade only via cobalt and gold. The Measured and Indicated have also gained copper equivalence via their byproduct credits.

So their 650,000t of "copper" is in fact imaginary faux copper which is primarily cobalt, which Fiedish redbeard points out, is overinflated in the calculation because it is priced in at 300% of current (and even worse on 15 month delivery spot contracts). The gold is perhaps underdone at $900/Oz, and since they have added 60% to the Au grade somehow, this would change the value somewhat.

nevertheless, it is incredibly interesting to consider that the 0.2% Cu equivalent cutoff relies heavily (in fact, solely) on the deemed value of included byproducts. This means that if the realised price of cobalt and gold are significantly different, then huge tonnages of the deposit will suddenly become uneconomic.

This is the danger with using copper-equivalent cutoffs; the 0.2% Cu equivalent shell upon which you base your pit relies primarily on cobalt credits (given the real copper grade inside that is 0.18%) then if you slash the price of Co by 60% then large amounts of the mineralisation will be deemed to be less than 0.2%.

This is an atrocious way to quote a resource cutoff.