the industry never applies that to copper projects, no matter how derisked they are, it is only applied to gold projects. It is a pitty, we also have so much gold too.

Don't believe this gold-preferred discount rate BS. 

Besides, what defines a deposit as either a copper deposit or gold deposit is the metal that produces the most revenues.  We are not far away from gold becoming the dominant revenue stream at Schaft Creek. 

Don't believe the majors when they say a polymetallic deposit is riskier and less valuable than a single metal deposit.    Discounting future revenues is about risk mitigation.  If you have multiple revenues streams, especially when uncorrelated like Schaft Creek's, you have less risk and therefore less of a need to heavilly discount.  The only thing better than a gold deposit is a gold deposit with strong and uncorrelated secondary metal revenue streams.

It is absolutely ridiculous to assert that a pure gold deposit is worth more and is less risky than a polymetallic gold deposit.

Plus, 7 years of verification and optimization of a BFS is the ultimate derisker.