OK, I think I might see what went on with the scaling factors, and the posts from dilengoose & Hog, the report etc. I was looking at this factor before from the Gluckstein & Silverspoon Report, and knew the terminology was wrong, but never really dug into it. Here's what I think:

In the report they used a 32% scaling factor (so they called it), but when you multiply a number by .32, that's not a 32% scaling factor, that's a (100 - 32 = 68) 68% scaling factor.

And that's what they did:

They had from the report an Estimated Ore Tonnage of 7,695,000 T, which they multiplied by .32 (and called it a 32% scaling factor), and came up with 2,445,300 T as a result. That is in fact a 68% scaling factor. If you truly scaled it by 32%, you should have come up with 5,232,600T

Before I do the calculation, the other thing I saw wrong, which I never bothered with, cause the numbers are so close, and I'm not sure if it was a mistake or not, but they show the Inferred grade as 29g/T which should be divided by 31.1g/OZ to give you 0.9325 OZ/T, not 29 divided by 28, to give 1.03 OZ/T . I'm not sure if it was a mistake, or they had other information? Anyway to be as conservative as I can, I'll use the lower number:

If you took the true 32% scaled number, you would get the following:

5,232,600T X 0.9325OZ/T = 4.88 Million OZ (maybe this was what they were trying to show)

The post I did the other day when I said hold your shares, was actually calculated using the huge scaling (actually 68% smaller number), maybe I'll redo with a true 32% scale?

Hope this makes sense