Ann: Paris PFS Delivers Outstanding Results, page-85

Hi Hotcopiserror,

Whilst I agree that the feasability studies show in theory that SVL trumps IVR by a margin in resource size which is totally understandable. I don't agree with your opinion on profitability though. IMO both ore bodies are vastly different, and in so the 2 companies have enbarked on 2 very different strategies. SVL have a voluminous ore body which has to be mined using mostly underground methods and whilst it has bonanza grade ore in parts, it mostly has marginal ore elsewhere because of the costs in mining and processing so it has had to drill the crap out of it to get reserve status on a large portion of the ore bodies. The margins are lower so SVL has been forced to do it this way.

IVR on the other hand has successfully and easily converted resources to indicated and will most likely convert some to reserves status as well just to show how easy it is. I have no doubt that going forward it will be as easy to convert further ore to indicated as well, so the complainers here about running out of ore and short mine life are not really thinking clearly about what is not included in the PFS. I haven't even mentioned the potential ore in the satellite deposits which in time with good exploration will prove additional tonnage. IVRs feasibility study is clearly to get it over the line with what it has now and its obvious profitability and get going with it. The rest will follow.