"So a pure copper play drills 2% Cu and announces 2% Cu. NWC...

"So a pure copper play drills 2% Cu and announces 2% Cu.

NWC drills a polymetallic interval and announces the copper-equivalent grade in Cu% x mill recovery."
Yes it gets complicated in poly metalics

To me first is it hard (in reality impossible ) to optimize the recovery of a particular element or compound at the same time as optimizing the recovery of other elements , which means it disingenuous to show optimal recoveries of all elements as viable - its a compromise in reality .

When comparing polymetailic to Au eq:
Secondly its normal to form a concentrate rather than dore from a polymetalic ore
Dore is very concentrated of very high value and easily refined , concentrate tends to be lower value , higher in impurities and not so easy to ship or refine and the refinery %s are lower , so comparing a mill recovery of a polymentalic to an almost pure gold bar is disingenuous as the polymetalic concentrate is more likely (all things being equal ) to be of less value at the mine gate even though it may have the same quantum of minerals in its assemblage as dore .

Had some friends years ago get burnt as investors in the Bass metals out of Tasmania fiasco years ago in regard to how the project failed regarding the actual met recoveries and subsequent payments compared to the calculated recoveries


the above comments are in general related to polymetalic mines and not targeting NWC .
I have not followed NWC regarding how they are calculating their probable recoveries , I assume ASX nowadays are vetting all their announcements and NWC are not misconstruing results .

For me I am more interested in how NWC was calculating its mining and processing costs , KPIs , and making assumptions , which I find perplexing
If NWC backs up its assumptions with actual comparable mining costs from other operators in the South West of USA I may get back in .