@Spec2Acc has beaten me to it!
I had started typing up some similar points but this poster has put it much more succinctly, good job. I learnt quite a bit in the process of researching these factors so I've shared what I had already started typing out below.
The links in particular are worth are read re. SG and true thickness.
The only thing I'll add here is a potential valuation outcome.
Take 5% of $2.178Bn (refer below), divide by the current shares on issue (2.304Bn) gives an approximate value of 4.72 cents per share. The 5% is clearly arbitrary and a rule of thumb used by that particular author to account for risk, dilution and/or leaving enough on the table for a large mining co. to come along and buy the resource to develop it on their own.
Undervalued Equity - Mineral Deposit Value - How to Calculate the Potential Value of a Mining Project
"You also can not expect that this adjusted mineral deposit value, is the price the mining company will receive from a buyer when this property is sold, as for instance, the costs of extracting the metal from the ore and other operating expenses are not deducted from the mineral deposit value. Therefore you could see a
major or mid-tier mining company that wants to replace their mined reserves
just pay a small percentage of this metal value for the deposit (i.e. 5% to 10%).
Note: Personally, I estimate the
adjusted mineral deposit value conservatively at 5%. Dividing this outcome by the total amount of shares outstanding helps me to easily determine which part of the share price corresponds with the assigned value of this deposit."
What I had drafted earlier (just FYI)
Thanks for starting this work
@Koko57. Appreciate everyone's effort here.
Just out of interest, did you come across this approach from the below link?
Undervalued Equity - Mineral Deposit Value - How to Calculate the Potential Value of a Mining Project
The approach sounds reasonable and has forced me to research and learn more about some of the input assumptions and better understand what feeds the overall calculation.
Just a slight correction on your numbers, I believe the manto is only
1200 x 800 x 15, so 14.4 million m
3 .
View attachment 674142
I note you've also assumed a Specific Gravity (or ore body density) of 4, which should be based on the major rock type(s) within the mantos ore body. I found the below article useful, albeit I don't know what the mantos contains so if anyone can help marry what we (think we) have with the categories contained within the article?
Measure Specific Gravity rocks
I also found the below article useful.
Calculation of Volume and Tonnage of Ore Deposit
I noted section 3.1.2, Drilling Oblique to Strike.
Oblique - neither parallel (e.g. drill line) nor at right angles to a specified line (e.g. manto angle).
"The situation is more complicated, if the drill hole runs oblique to strike. Spatial restrictions such as drilling... in mountainous areas often necessitate drilling oblique to strike. Sometimes .. this method... give the impression of an exaggerated apparent thickness and disguise a low true thickness."
View attachment 674136
I used an online protractor to measure the angle of inclination of the drill hole (223 degrees) vs the angle of inclination of the manto (208), or 15 degrees of difference. That paper sets out some complicated calculation to determine a "true thickness", which I have not ventured down.
(20min delay)