I'm only a newbie, but....

I'd think the in situ value of the gold is going to depend more on things like amount at surface, continuity of zones, expected strip ratios and so on. (I still refuse to think of this as an essentially underground mine.)

Also I'd expect the in situ value is going to depend on how developed the model of the deposit is. As long as it's all inferred, non-PEA and non-43-101, I'd say the value is more like $20-$30/oz. The 43-101, and then the PEA, are where the in situ value fattens up.

I suspect the market's assuming 2-3g/t as a given. Isn't it a given? And how much tonnage would depend on what has already been proven.

Receiving informative infill results (to clarify the model) will bump the price up, and receiving results that indicate extension of zones will bump the price up. Depth, maybe not so much, as it's harder to get to.

BTW, you might have noticed, every 2-bit "bulk tonnage" pump job on the TSX-V tries to assert "our deposit is open at depth and is 'probably' being fed from a monster deposit 1 mile down". It's the way to put a positive spin on shooting worthless holes - infer a (e.g.) massive porphyry at the center of the earth or something. So while a few deep drills proving there's gold below 300m are nice, I'd personally rather see holes that demonstate connection between zones. Any NR that says "itz so awesomez at depth" will just make them lose credibility.