So what you are saying is that you believe the PEA is inaccurate (even though it is a 43-101 report) and the back of your napkin is a more likely scenario ... In your opinion

Fair enough, I guess there's a cynic in every group who never believes what's put in front of them.

If the PEA says that they can mine 1.5 million ounces at an average grade of 1.16 g/t and a starting grade of 1.60 g/t over the first 2 years at a cost of $500 per ounce and NPV of 351MM and IRR of 49%, I guess it must be too good to be true. Yes often a company CEO will ask the engineering company to paint as rosy a picture as possible but to ask them to say it's a dream project at $1,000 an ounce when it's only marginal would be borderline fraud IMO.

The infill drilling is producing results over wide widths at grades 30% to 40% higher than the average expected grade over mine life (per PEA) why is that bad or marginal. To me it shows that it is very possible that those 1.5 million ounces in the PEA will be upgradable and still eligible in a feasibility study ... that's what the infill drilling is for. There is even a chance the number will be higher, but let's work on that 1.5mm first.

If the feasibiity study can show the same minable ounces at even remotely similar economics, then Brian Has done an excellent job.

BTW Osisko ... I assume you know who they are ... are mining an average grade of 1.14 g/t,

Romarco has a high grade open pit 2.16 g/t but has a ridiculous strip ratio 7.2:1. (market cap is 800 million)

There are many mines in the world nearing end of life that are mining under .5 g/t ...Yanacocha is one example.