I agree that there's good reason to investigate if CIL will...

I agree that there's good reason to investigate if CIL will achieve higher results then the current plant configuration. However, as per the last quarterly report the "focus at Cascavel is achieving a steady run rate of high grade tonnes through all four mills on a consistent basis for August and the remainder of the quarter."

This steady state was starting from Monday 30 July - at which time they produced the 110-110 oz over two days without CIL. Hence the base-line figures are calculated from the results achieved over those two days, without taking into account any further increases in things like daily tonnage, ore grades, or daily operating hours.

They also advise that the current plant configuration (ie without CIL) will show higher rates in August, and should support the existing targets of 1,000, 1,500 and 2,000 tonnes per months, ie they feel they don't need the CIL solution to still meet these targets.

As I understand it, the benchmarking against CIL is to try and maximise the recovery rates, as well as cover changes in both the gold and ore compositions - and in particular to determine this prior to processing the tailings.

Let's face it, this mine has the potential to produce much better then 8g/t - and also let's not forget that RC has a unique and extra performance target, over and above the first three, of 5,000 oz/month for 4 consecutive months.... and if CIL makes a difference, he'd be made not to incorporate it.