I'm going to be the "devil's advocate".

In-situ metal values are simple to calculate...tonnage x grade. You can find examples of deposits with identical GMVs, some very high tonnage, very low grade and visa versa. Which would you invest in? You do your DD and discover that the former is not presently economic, nor does it appear that it might be or ever be mainly because of metal pricing. The latter, however, appears economically attractive. Simple choice. Your DD took into account all the variables, including recoveries, metal price outlooks, capital costs, operating costs, the cost of capital, marketability, transportation costs, etc.

In-situ metal values can be calculated for any size or shape of any "body". But does that have any real meaning in the present tense? I'll give you a couple of examples. One can calculate the amount of Au in all the oceans on earth....pretty impressive #. Can we extract it economically with technology known today.........NO. This is an extreme example of huge tonnage, but extremely low grade.

Another example is the Ag contained in Barrick's Veladero Au/Ag deposit in Argentina..........some 180M oz worth some $3B. Can it be recovered economically with existing technology..........NO.

So, what do we do with Blackbird 1? We wait for the consultant's report.

Respectfully submitted

geoprof

PS I have serious doubts that RN would have ever said to anyone over the telephone that the chromium in BB1 was worth $12B. But now that someone has posted this on this forum, I hope that this does not set the regulators after RN and distract him from doing what he does so well for all of us. Think twice before you post stuff like that. It can come back and bite you and us!