SPR (ASX) MRE &amp; LOM

Originally posted by speculator101: ↑

Hey Joel,
SL mentioned the deep drill hole under the Gilbeys main pit, and I decided to try and find it.... no bloody luck.
In any case, I thought I would show what I did find and in particular, the Gibley's South drill results (the earlier decision by GCY under the past MD, to mothball mining it, as it did not stack up), and the Sly Fox resource, which SL mentioned, he hoped to bring back into the mine plan.

From Jan 2021. I get the impression that SL may view this as economic after all?

Yet, back in 2020, it was in the mine plan..... or at least parts of it?

Just eyeballing it, with almost 200m of strike, it should add more than 5k ounces...?

regarding the 240k reserve you mention, what troubles me, is that I believe it includes Stage 3 cutback? Which.. to me would be at least 150k ounces (to give a further 2 full years of production, as per the old mine plan).

July 2020 -

Though that was when the reserve was 430k

So... if my basic maths is right, GCY still has around 160k in reserves currently. 430k- 150k - 120k for past production
Which sounds about right. As we also know that they have been able to add incremental ounces from time to time that was not within the mine plan.
So 18 months at full production, then 2-3 years of low grade.

Then you have the Plymouth, Gilb South, Sly Fox larger pit potential.

Very hard to know about Plymouth, as they never provided an MRE (from memory).
At least Sly Fox had one, initially at 77k, which increased to 83k, but....... this was with the past management...... before DH or SL.

None the less, all 3 deposits, if combined with incremental ounces which SL believes they will find, may well provide a substantial greater open pit.
My guess, a total of 50k ounces. Of course, I have no idea just how many ounces they mined from Sly Fox (though I have a very... slight recolection of 30k being the reserve), though I am guessing perhaps 30-40k.

Just for interests sake, here is the 2020 mine plan in regards to ore volumes/sources.

I feel that the Stage 2 (dark blue), has been pushed back, due to the extensions of ore that had not previously been in the mine plan, hence, FY2023 should be the high grade, low strip.

If Sly Fox could hold 83k, Gilbey's north simply has to beat that. The grades at Sly Fox were fine, but.... simply not as good as GN.

Soo.... in summary, I have no idea what we are really going to see with the new LOM, except that we will actually have a viable one, your guideance seems appropriate, as we still don't know when GN will actually be mined, though... we have the impression of the second half of FY2023, which would be lower grades, but low strip (versus the higher grades further down).

Expand

Thanks Spec that was gold (pardon the pun).

One's things for sure, SL isn't standing around with his hands in his pockets kicking around rocks.

As for stage 2, I think we only have 20,000 to 30,000oz left.

I feel as if my 25,000 ounce estimate for Gilbeys East footwall might be a lowball number.
After hearing SL the other day my new estimate for the Eastern Footwall would be double that now at 50,000oz.
Gilbeys South looks like a fairly low grade marginal deposit that might come into the LOM as a low grade feed to mix in with the high grade GN ore. Anything over a 4:1 strip ratio for Gilbeys South and it would be better to just shelve, just it like RH did back in March 21.
From my understanding Gilbeys South's main use in the near term will be providing another ramped access to GMZ ore.
Sly Fox and Plymouth could be over 50,000oz combined if they can found extensions to the main pit from the dirt between the deposts (SL seemed confident that they will find this extension).

My original estimate included Stage 3 in the current reserve.

Still shocked at the Bridge estimate of 70,000oz Reserve at Melville. From memory it was mostly indicated and was infill drilled to 10 x 10m spacing. I would have thought there would be more economical ounces pulled out of Melville deposit as the ore is mostly low strip, near surface and reasonably tightly stacked.

Whatever this new LOM number is, we can rest assured knowing that this number is not static and will only increase as more infill drill results feed into the block models.

GLTAH