Hey CJR- That was a nice post to remind us of many of the recent positives here. I am actually much more positive than you are with respect to the preparation of the 43-101 resource estimate. For me, it is not a question of IF, but rather WHEN. As I understand it, the purpose of hiring the third party engineering team is to help us determine the most cost/time effective strategies for optimizing grade and tonnage during the preparation of the 43-101. Therefore, as I see it, the 43-101 resource estimate is the main priority. Of course the important variables will be cutoff grade, tonnage, and average grade as well as the proportion of the deposit at depth that we can classify as measured vs. indicated vs. inferred.
James Tilsley has repeatedly mentioned how rare and special a 1 million ounce deposit is. I will remind you that 10 MT at 2.9 g/ton gets us very close to that landmark. Tilsley never guaranteed that this deposit will contain that amount of gold, but I believe it can be inferred from his comments that he believes it does. The question will be the extent to which Tilsley and the third party engineering firm can provide 43-101 compliant evidence of the ounces he believes are in the ground. Assuming this deposit ca be mined at costs similar to Agnico-Eagle's, my calculations indicate that we are undervalued (from an NPV perspective) even if the total ounces turn out to be at the low end of our expectations (682,000 ounces, ie 7.5 MT at 2.84 g/t) .
I respect all of those careful investors who prefer to wait until the resource estimate is published. For me, I have talked to the people who are the closest to the work that is going on and I have seen the excitement in their eyes. I have done my best to find the potential downside in the valuation of GNH based on the data already published by the company and have repeatedly come to the conclusion that we are undervalued at these prices.
Best,
Scott
