Wow, you’ve got me stumped with what I don’t understand/forgot
Here’s what you might not understand...
Just because a system is IRGS doesn’t somehow magically transfer low-grade sub-economic rocks into profitable economic ore that will be the processed!
That’s why every gold deposit uses a “cut-off” grade yo determine what what is reserve grade vs sub-economic waste!
Even if it’s “mineralised from surface”, the grade and thickness needs to above a certain threshold to be considered for open-pit mining, if not will still be classified as waste and add to pre-development capital costs.
You can harp on all you like about this being an IRGS, but the fundamental basics of mining 101 still apply irrespective of the deposit type.
Further, your statement “the actual full results contains many more multiple lower grade results, starting near surface” is nonsense...the near surface results were either barren or so low as to not even bother reporting them...if there was anything remotely economic they would have been reported!
You may think it’s boring that some of us keep questioning why they refuse to include sectional diagrams when releasing new results...exploration is their only business, they would assist investors to assess their results far more easily, are required by the JORC guidelines, and is the right thing to do to keep shareholders informed.
Looking forward to more analysis of what I don’t understand/forgot
