However, I'm more interested in the underlying performance of the mine and how quickly it will ramp up to the production figures outlined in the 2014 Feasibility study.
|lots of gold at a good grade as well...|
|They should be mining material grading 13-16 g/t Au|
Before everyone sends me heaps of abuse (feel free to do so), I understand that we are very early in the mine life, and but I want people to look at the underlying performance at Brucejack.
In the Q3 financials
- Head grade = 10.5 g/t Au
- Throughput = 2,840 tonnes per day
- Recovery = 96.5%
In the 2014 Feasibility Study
- Head grade (life of mine) = 14.1 g/t Au
- Throughput = 2,700 tonnes per day
- Life of mine recovery = 94%
Plant ramp up = good
Recoveries = excellent
Head grade = poor - head grade is ~33% lower than planned.
I know this is very boring, for Brucejack has occasionally raised a number of questions regarding the quality of its resources, the geology and its ability to support a large underground operation. I was surprised that the head grade reported in the Q3 financials was so low. There are a number of factors, including:
- Still in the ramp up stage and not yet reached the >15 g/t Au areas?
- Excessive dilution, mining barren country rock with the gold veins
- Inconsistent gold grades (large variability over very short distances)
For me, it will be interesting to see how the head-grade evolves over time. Will Pretium be back on track in the Q4 financials, or is that an indicator for potential problems in the future with the project not quite reaching the production and profitability figures as promised?