BRB (ASX) Ann: Change of Director's Interest Notice x2

Originally posted by Goldbug23: ↑

Countrywriter:

It's common to run a feasibility study on Indicated resources for gold projects because the amount of drilling required to get to Measured status in a vein gold deposit is commonly onerous. Indicated resources can be converted to Probable reserves, so no problem there. There is no need to drill a large portion of the resource to Measured prior to financing.

The right time to run the mining study is when all the mineralisation that would fall within the open pit shell and underground stopes has been drilled into Indicated status. No point running a study that has to count potential ore as waste, because the makes the economics look worse unnecessarily.

Financiers will usually want Proven Reserves coverage for the capital payback period, commonly the first 3 years. Only Measured Resources can convert to Proven Reserves. Typically, the extra drilling and upgrade to Measured Resources for the first 3 years of mining is done after the feasibility study but before construction but is part of the construction capital. This drilling is essentially grade control drilling, done to define the ore/waste boundaries to a high level of detail. Grade control drilling is a normal part of the production cycle, so it needs to be done anyway. Usually grade control drilling is completed just ahead of mining to minimise the cost.

What I think BRB will have to do before the feasibility study is better constrain the flat lodes. Some of these flat lodes are defined by a single hole up the middle of the lode with no holes either side to define the edges. It's very difficult to design a mine without knowing where the edge of the orebody is. I'm guessing that these flat lodes are only Inferred status currently, so this would bring them into Indicated status, allowing inclusion in the mine plan and conversion to Probable Reserves.

BRB have a great gold project here. They have been punished for misreading the market regarding Manna. I was annoyed when the Manna deal was done because the outcome was predictable. Describing Manna as non-core was like shooting themselves in the foot. Different wording would have delivered a materially different outcome. They would have been better to show intent to develop Manna which would have turbocharged the share price. Then they could have raised serious capital in the order of $80 million to advance both projects at the higher share price. Manna could then have been spun out post feasibility study with both projects having been fully funded to feasibility study stage.

Opportunity lost but I'm over it now and BRB look way oversold.

Expand

I am on the same page here however it is like achieving the same outcome with a different pathway, the difference is in timing of SP increase