James & Mayer, the combination of both of your posts makes for a more interesting response. So here goes. What would account for such a "steep" rise in the cost per ounce, take time off for the holidays and still being able to beat budgeted targets by over 11%?
I could take off on another one of my dissertations; but I will refrain, this time, and speculate (wild guess) that they must have trucked/blended some of the low grade ore (high grade waste) as ore. This is sometimes done as a cost savings measure, extends the reserve, reduces the variable costs, etc. This should explain my previous SI post looking for feed tonnes, grade, recovery and ounces. Because sometimes it is easy to back calculate. i.e. @12,9 gpt = $220/t; vs Xgpt=$260/t.
Again referring to the article in the Canadian Mining Journal (previously cited), the values encountered in the "waste" drift connecting the two "high grade zones" was a pleasant surprise. It was not detected on drilling; but only on driving through it was the mineralization "observed" So instead on saving it for backfill they may now have to wait until a mill is built on site and use the tailings generated as backfill.
Me thinks that before "Team Glimmer" embarks on a shopping trip to Bissett, Manitoba (or any where else for that matter, and Bissett is only mentioned because it is advertised for sale in the latest NM), the JV will have to have to come to some agreement on financing, which means some form of an out of court settlement and it should be done the same time or soon after announcing the new reserves.
Cheers Winzer |
