Ann: High Grade Results Continue at Oposura, page-62

Your calculations are completely off and lack transparency.

It's why you have to add insults and diversions to them.

You don't even start with an inground valuation.

Cart before horse. No wonder you're so off.

Starting with the capex, refresh your memory with these figures:

Post #:30080864

Mine capex is on p.209 (of the report).
The capital costs are estimated to be approximately $10.8 million for 750 mtpd plant, approximately $15.3 million for 1250 mtpd and approximately $ 27.8 million for 2000 mtpd. see p.208

Those are metric tonnes per day. All you can say to the San Felipe figures is they're old? Not that old that they are wrong to the order of 10/20 X

Plus don't you think that Mexico has improved with capex? Because it's a favoured mining destination for multiple reasons. Including low costs across the board. That derives from mining expertise which is cheap, and infrastructure, manufacturing base very cheap etc.


You forget the figure of 250,000 - 300,000 tonnes in the resource target is contained zinc. Based on the previous Canadian PEA which we are twinning and going beyond. You like to ignore that, and bleat on about the difference between resource and reserve. You expect us all to wait for reserve to be declared, that's missing an opportunity here joining the facts and the likely scenarios.

Key fact: resource target is 250,000 - 300,000 tonnes Zn. It's not ore.

You can convert that 250-300k tonnes to get an inground valuation of between $850 million (using $3,500 per tonne Zn price) or $1.2 billion (using your price of $4,000 per tonne at 300k) of just the Zinc. At least you're realistic about the bullish zinc price.

Recovery rates will need to adjust this slightly downwards, BUT the mineralisation is not complex. The processes are simple. Plus we have the gold credits which will significantly adjust upwards.

These are broad back of the envelope calculations. I said that at the outset while you bang on about declared reserve.

You're going on about a piddling 125 metric tonne per day production?

Where did you get that figure from? Where??

I'd say 500 metric tonne per day is conservative and feasible with even the smallest plant of 750 metric tonnes capacity per day.

That blows out of the water your piddling 125 metric tonne calculations with an inflated capex of $60mil.

What new insult will you have for me? I can hardly wait.