Pac Partners coverage, page-183

Hahaha brother @yubisan I was just in the process of preparing my repsonse when all of a sudden I looks and you have been scrubbed champ..

Got whacked my self today for something posted on Sunday (would you believe), off topic they said... Drunc I thought to meself .. hahahaha

Now before you were erased I did catch a glimpse & noted you were questioning pacs shotgun approach to valuing.. And you may have a point, but as most know by now the ability to accurately assess this thing is at best tricky.. So no surprise the analyst gave 4 poss scenarios.. Of which we can prob bank on seeing 2 this year & poss an extra..

For the record, I sit well over their figure but I'm not drilling to JORC in a timeframe of first July & then Jan for a deliverable..

As we can see it's a fair old size so it won't be an issue going forward, however Pac called out a couple of things... And if I didn't knoiw better I'd say undaunted wrote the bloody thing..

Cause no sooner had we fended off another complaint about sections and patchiness, then Pac turns round as says what do you think UD, you seem like you handle on this.. ?? Complex & inconsistent flies in the face of company releases which say it's demonstrating grade continuity so I'm anyone knows.. If I'm honest, myself included..

However Pac then go on to say look we aren't sure on the resource but we measured it and we reckon 42mt @ 0.9

"Using the publicly available information, we have analysed the drilling to date and estimate the current resource at Ternera as its stands is 42mt @ 0.9g/t for 1.34moz Au".




Now we have all used the same publicly available info and we all arrive at different figures so I guess this is just another exercise on that front, take from it what you will... For the record I use 0.475 g/t average as that was what the full metre x mete downhole analysis of all grades over 3000 metres returned.

I mean it is a big area we can se that so hitting 1.3 aint that hard but is it to JORC is the question now..





And Zeff is pegging gridlines and boxing it all in and the figure will come down to how much comes in under that umbrella for classification..

Pac did the first assessment afetr 22 holes and said 500-1moz poss.. 69 holes later (now at 91 last count) they say it could be 1.3.. Which doesn't show a huge return for 20'000m or so over 69 drills does it?

Based on the drilling program to date, if drilling were to stop now, we believe there is likely to be aresource of 1.3moz at Ternera at a grade of ~0.9g/t Au. We can see a pathway to 2moz if thecurrent drilling campaign proves successful. TSO owns 70% of the project which will become 80%on the completion of a DFS and small payment of US$50k. We use 80% attributable in ourvaluation.We estimate Ternera could conceptually be worth $135-$260m based on a resource of 1.3-2.5mozand a peer median EV/Resource oz of $130/oz. We see significant exploration potential at theTernera lookalike target to the east, Toro Blanco, Drone Hill, Toro Gordo and Buzzard. We attributea nominal $25m exploration potential for these prospects.Our 12-month price target for TSO is upgraded to $0.38/sh (previous $0.28/sh) based on a 2mozexploration target at Ternera of which 1.6moz is attributable to TSO.

No one knows, we're all guessing.. Will they make 2m oz if you ask me, yeah should do it easy IMO barring any disasters.. And if peeps want to dissect things here's my last tweak.. 750 x 100 x 300 x 1 g/t at 2.5 sg to account for tonalite density, it gives 1.9m at a figure close to there reported 0.9 g/t
But if you wan to work backwards from the Pacs figures and use a constant SG, Av g/t & av depth 250m (260m across all holes last check) then you can plug in any length and width you feel comfortable with and that Zeff can peg before July to see roughly where he lands..


0.475 is the average over holes 1-12 for every metre.. And it is that type of consistency that will determine the total ore pulled in what is a bulk tonnage play.. Would love to get 0.9 but am happy with half that at the moment..


And look, the only one who comes close to knowing the real figures is this man and he's got the model!!!!


So if he's saying 750 x 600 x 300 then you can at ;least plug that in to the worksheet and see what you get.. If it's greater than 2m oz then hell, there may just be a little upside to all this gloom and doom.. What do ya reckon? Who's willing to have a punt... You brother? hahaha