Solid write up Gopherbroke. Like Scottm indicated this is only a...

Solid write up Gopherbroke.

Like Scottm indicated this is only a portion of the known resource. Current updated BFS is 18% of the known resource. We already know that includes 2mt of undrilled ground therefore is marked as waste ore but will probably contain a small amount of tungsten, 400% IRR? To elaborate for new readers:

EQR have done a scoping study for an underground operation that has 2.36Mt@ 1.05% WO3. This underground mine is not under the ocean. It also does not contribute in anyway to the current NPV. The scoping study mentions a 10year mine life but that comment has since been retracted.

This underground mine also already includes a decline of, I think, 430 metres which was never used. Scottm you may know or be able to find out this figure, I have seen or heard it before but can not remember, But the cost of this decline was well into the millions. Quite the capex saving, especially if you think about what it would cost today.

EQR also hold the Iron Duke resource that currently sits at 5.8Mt @ 0.59% WO3. The current 3000m drill campaign includes a few investigative holes in Iron Duke to follow up the previous one. "6 drill holes were drilled into Iron Duke by the previous owners. They average 8m in width over a strike length of approximately 250m at an average grade of 0.32% WO3, while the surface expression of the Iron Duke extends over 2.2km".

The current drilling is also following up on another investigative hole “It was unexpected that we intersected a high grade zone of mineralisation of 5.95m @ 0.94% WO3 on our last section going westward from the open pit" -Kevin

There are others like: "The Petersen’s lodes are 2km southeast from the Mt Carbine open pit. Historic production at a grade of 0.6% WO3 resulted in production of 950t – 95,000 mtu – of scheelite concentrate. The mineralised zone at Petersen’s is approximately 10m wide, and extends 1.3km along strike at surface. "

The other thing that is always worth spruiking is the Quarry aspect. I do not see any value attributed to the ESG benefits of the Quarry.

As to shareprice, I prefer an EPR than an NPV based share price guess. Until/when/if we start making money the share price isn't a major concern, it is too illiquid to trade.