We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Lucky, current drill is: BRDD-20-001
Ref: https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3902L_1-2021-1-12.pdf
IWantThatOne - I appreciate what you’re trying to calculate, however i’d suggest assuming that the ore body is mathematically conical - at least close enough that you could work out the volume of ore, is incorrect.
I think it’s fair to assume from the information we’ve been given that the ore body becomes thicker at depth than at surface, I suppose that being the nature of how these geological formations come into being.. however whilst this could be considered “conical” I.e wider at the bottom and thinner at the top, I feel comfortable suggesting that there is no way one could calculate volume based on a mathematical formula for a true cone... as simply, it isn’t one.
See link: https://www.rns-pdf.londonstockexchange.com/rns/3902L_1-2021-1-12.pdf
CB's made a point in his interview with Zac about updating the market on Monday
- with a positive RNS pretty much nailed on for Monday (presumably morning?) it certainly seems like people are clambering over each other to get a slice...
Nail on the head Stocky1 It's blatantly obvious QueensLandWinner is trying to push a negative agenda here
QLW - you're not a shareholder here as it stands (by your own admission) yet you feel the need to post the same rhetoric repetitively about placings (I wonder why?)- you began today by trying to convince posters (incorrectly) that Sanderson could effectively force us to take their money for shares at a discount, you were called out for your nonsense then (you're welcome) - and since, you've just removed that part (because it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about) and keep banging on about placings and lack of cash.
Your repetitive negative posting - even after knowledgable shareholders have explained why what you are posting is wrong is pathetic.. ridiculous that you think your plan of "shout the loudest and most often" to try and convince people of your nonsense is likely to work.
You're not a shareholder here, why don't you do us actual holders all a favour and stop posting completely unsubstantiated rubbish? It's getting a little tiresome having to call you out on it...
... I suppose a more relevant example would have been for me to compare the AISC's for open pit mining with underground mining, given we're talking about ease of access rather than grade...
Gixxer- "Anglo may buy-back 80% of the Racecourse deposit at fair market value as determined by an Independent Expert in accordance with the JORC and Valmin Code."
ref: https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XTR/bushranger-copper-gold-project-australia-o7u71uhdwbdy9b9.html
I'm far from an expert but one would presume that the valuation of a mine would have a lot to do with production costs, i.e. costs per Ton vs. revenue per Ton.
Using an example, if you have 1g gold / 1T of material, or 1g of gold / 10T of material, you have the same amount of gold but would have to process ten times the Ore to obtain it thus altering the AISC's / value of the material in the ground.
If it's cheaper to mine then we'd likely get a better sale value for it, and/or it will be more attractive which means a sale would be more likely...
Hope that helps?