Risk adjusted and discounted valuation based on the current...

Risk adjusted and discounted valuation based on the current resource & a reasonable forecast on the resource growth following the planned expansion drilling.

Valuation method DCF.

Valuation before the Scoping Study will be somewhat speculative from an assumed grade, stripping ratio for each year in the production profile. Got to have form of valuation to determine if the project is worthwhile investing in.

The cost for open pit projects are fairly similar from a mining cost & processing cost perspective. You can benchmark 5x other similar projects. The only thing that is subject to speculation is the strip ratio per tonne of ore processed.

Can't deem all projects worthless until they have a scoping study or FS.

Hell, if that was the case, there would never be another discovery made.

Well, for you, if you are not comfortable making any assumptions, you can eyeball the project at a high level, you either will think it is a good open pit project or not. It is not that hard to compare and there are not that many peers with defined open pit projects in the 1-2Moz scale. When you do find the peers you'd be comparing their respective valuations vs resource size compared to ours.

No, the metric i was referring to of the $EV/oz example is simply just a reversion of a transactional outcome by the resource. The metric has some relevance if comparing like for like projects. e.g. Open Pit Projects around the development stage. For example, you'd obtain the take-over valuations of the last 10 open pit projects that were acquired, divide it by the resource constrained within the pitshell and analyze the rates for each one. You'll find that half the open pit projects are acquired fairly early on so they likely won't have ore reserves declared e.g. AOP & OKU. So reverting the aggregate asset transaction value by the resource constrained within pit (not global unconstrained) would be more useful.