Sincere thanks Dugsab for going to that trouble for other readers to see how you arrived at your conclusion re $32 million profit for LNY. People can accept that in absolute good faith as you are using information that is on the public record re the terms of the HOA and what LNY was proposed and "aims" for that processing agreement.
I'm not inclined to accept the absolute premise on which you have based your conclusions, what you call "presumptions", "targeting +8g/t with improved recovery rate which you "assume" at 8.5g/t recovered"
I can see no reference in any of LNY's published data that provides substantiated evidence that that figure of +8.5g/t recovered is achievable, especially when you have used that number as a consistent delivery over the entire 200,000 tonnes that they propose to process.
They have shown a recovery of 9.8g/t from a "high grade pod" but from a small sample of only 5,472 tonnes.
All of their JORC tables show much lower indicated grades and even "High grade sub-set" only had the highest reading of 6.01g/t over 89kt, with their total from that "high grade sub-set" being 1,253K @ 2.16g/t. Their overall JORC is 8.2m/t@ 1.46g/t.
So, I simply cannot deduce that they can extract what they "aim" to get i.e. +8.5g/t from the entire 200,000 tonnes.
Added to that is still the "presumption" that that HOA with EOPL, upon which you have drawn your conclusions, is still operative, you personally have cast doubt on the validity and viability of that EOPL agreement and of it's owner.
So, my view is that until we see the final terms and conditions of the MINING and PROCESSING agreement/s we should be very careful about drawing any conclusions about income and profits for shareholders.
And that's apart from serious concerns about the consistency of grades from production over anything beyond 89,000 tonnes @ 6.01g/t.
And that summary is not "rhetoric" it's a personal conclusion.
I don't have access to Chi-x volumes, just sales, my anti-virus system tells me that it is a "risky" site??
Expand
