Hello Dolphins

It's good to see the assumptions on the table, so that we can compare notes.

It appears that we are looking at the deposit from different angles.

- You are looking at it from above using the NE-SW and NW-SE axes as a reference (150mx300m) with a depth of 500m.

- I am taking a slice with the axis in the N-S direction where the bulk of the data is available: holes 4, 5, 8,9,10 and 11. The deposit cross-section going through that axis is an oval (looping all the good grade, with average grade of 5%). The thickness of this oval cross section came from hole 14; in fact it's the projection of the intercept on the surface). The oval is then "squeezed" (approximated) into a rectangle x-section to simplify the math. The resulting shoe-box model now has a dimension of 350m (along the N-S direction x 150m (depth) x 200m thick.

350x150x200x2.6sg = 27M tonnes

There are some difference in the sg (2.6 versus 2.7) but that is is minor (4%).

The main difference as I see it is the depth of the deposit. I used 150m by putting more weight on the high-grade sections, and limit the oval x-section to about 300-400m (for a much smaller/less expensive open-pit, at least for the initial operation). Yours is 500m (a factor of 3.3 higher than mine/a much larger pit) Your grade is 4.1% compared to mine at 5% (20%).

Ignoring all "minor" stuff, the key seems to be the depth of the deposit (a factor of approximately 3.

Perhaps, I am conservative, just trying to put a floor under the estimate in view of the scarsity of data. Anything above 27M tonnes would be gravy. So, presumably ROTH people are ultra-conservative?

goldhunter