SYR or TON? Time to jump ship?, page-151

Hi Paul, you suggested, quite reasonably, that the term "modeled mineralized domains", which is so key to all this discussion, may be simply excluding Charmers, and other areas less-explored to date, as in your post:
.
"Using a block model reporting cut off grade of zero, which incorporates all internal dilution within the modeled mineralized domains

A simple answer, to me this 'the modelled mineralised domains' is so not to cause confusion and give clear reference that it is not including the western prospects, Charmers etc that are within the license but not in the model of the Inferred/Indicated Jorc'd zones and does not include any depths below those reported."

It all sounds terribly technical, and probably a good cure for insomnia, but (unfortunately!) it's also very important. It's nothing less than saying what is in the ore reserves, and what is not - and that really matters.

The answer is buried away in the small print on Page 21 of the JORC announcement, in answer to the JORC question "Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made". It states:

"Assay data has been used to generate mineralisation domains based on a nominal 9% Graphitic Carbon cut-off grade."

So the situation is now clear. This statement confirms that the ore reserve calculations, and the blocks used to derive those reserves, refer only to the mineralized bands, and not to any intervening zones where the Graphitic Carbon is below 9%. Mining those bands would almost certainly mean mining the low-grade ore and barren rock between them.

It rather looks like TON will need to find some substantial-sized, richer areas (at Charmers, perhaps?) to avoid having to dig a lot of rock. There's a large, and very promising area to search, but, in mine-establishment terms, they may not be there just yet.

Jump ship? No, because, market caps notwithstanding, even the announced large reserves at TON don't provide a sound case for switching from SYR to TON.
from SYR to TON.

Cheers, Prime1