Thanks for the link.
Comparisons between deposits can be made but so many variables need to be considered that the end result is open debate about which is better or rather to what level they can be economic.
A more appropriate comparison might be Consolidated Zinc's (CZL) Plomosa Vs Opasura.
However, Opasura Vs SUP (Pick deposit+) - some features:
Opasura - Replacement Zn/Pb/Ag; open pit to shallow UG; tonnage similar (2+Mt indicated), grade lower (~8%)but for style and depth of deposit possibly economic; good geotechnical rock properties; Two deposits with variable thickness and continuity of mineralisation; shallow? exploration upside; Shelved by large mining companies in 70's; Mexico...
Pick - VMS Zn +; moderate depth underground; tonnage 2+Mt at 17% Zn; poor geotechnical (Tumblir); more likely amenable to larger scale UG mining if technically feasible; deeper exploration upside - expensive and tricky; well? explored 20 years ago but not put into production even with good base metal prices in 2003-8 "boom"; Canada...
Tumblir more negative comments:
View attachment 1177212
SUP's recent presentation gives Golden Grove's Gossan Hill as an exploration model for the "Ophiolite" property.
6 years at GG from the late 80's gave me a lot of insight into how difficult it was to convert near surface data into possible deposits/mines along the 40 kilometres available. Gossan Hill was an obvious target but it wasn't until UG mining was begun in the 1990's that the deeper deposits were "discovered" over a 10+ year period.
View attachment 1177209
There is a reasonable chance SUP will have exploration success which will come at a possibly high $ and time cost to bring into production.
Not certain about this but low grade (not Pick) UG mining is more prevalent and cost effective in Canada (+Scandinavia) than Oz.
From the above both deposits have issues that could preclude them from being economic. Both seem to need very careful detailed studies made to resolve these "issues".
