GOH

What are the potential upside or downside scenarios based on the technical report’s findings?

Created August 07, 2025 at 01:01 PM

Potential Upside & Downside Scenarios from the Ref‑Filed NI 43‑101 Technical Report for the Copeçal Gold Project

Scenario	What could happen	Why it matters (typical technical‑report triggers)	Lik‑elihood cues (based on a fresh, independent NI 43‑101 filing)
Upside Scenarios
1. Larger In‑situ Resource estimate	The updated mineral‑resource model may show additional tonnage and/or higher gold grades compared with the previous estimate, expanding the indicated or inferred resource.	A larger resource improves the project’s economics (longer mine life, higher cash‑flow) and can attract downstream partners or a higher valuation in the market.	A new NI 43‑101 filing usually incorporates the latest drilling results; if the May 2025 drill program added significant high‑grade intercepts, the resource could be upgraded.
2. Higher grade zones identified	The report may highlight new high‑grade “sweet‑spot” zones within the Copeçal system that were not captured in the earlier model.	High‑grade ore reduces processing cost per ounce and boosts net‑present‑value (NPV) and internal rate of return (IRR).	The technical report’s “Geology, Mineralization and Exploration” focus often pinpoints mineral‑enriched structures that can be targeted in a future pre‑FEAS.
3. Favorable metallurgical results	Metallurgical test work could confirm that the ore is amenable to simple, low‑cost processing (e.g., high cyanide‑leach recoveries, low reagent consumption).	Simple processing translates into a lower capital‑expenditure (CAPEX) and operating‑expenditure (OPEX) profile, improving project economics and shortening the time to production.	The inclusion of “Exploration” in the title suggests that the report likely contains fresh assay and metallurgical data from recent core runs.
4. Infrastructure or permitting upside	The report may identify that the project sits on or near existing transport corridors, power lines, or that the permitting environment in Mato Grosso is supportive.	Reduced infrastructure spend and a smoother regulatory path lower the overall risk premium that investors apply to the project.	A “Geology, Mineralization and Exploration” report often includes a “Project Overview” section that maps out access, land‑use and regulatory status.
5. Positive economic sensitivity	The technical report may model a base‑case with a relatively low cut‑off grade (e.g., 0.5 g t⁻¹) and still deliver attractive NPV/IRR, indicating the project is robust to modest gold‑price fluctuations.	Demonstrates that even if gold prices dip, the project can still generate positive cash‑flows, widening the upside for investors.	A fresh NI 43‑101 filing typically includes a “Pre‑FEAS” or “Economic Evaluation” that runs price‑sensitivity scenarios; a strong base‑case is a good sign.

Scenario	What could happen	Why it matters (typical technical‑report triggers)	Lik‑likelihood cues
Downside Scenarios
1. Resource downgrade (tonnage or grade)	The updated model may re‑classify some previously indicated resources to inferred, or cut the overall tonnage/grade if recent drilling intersected lower‑grade mineralization.	A downgrade reduces the projected mine‑life and cash‑flow, potentially lowering the project’s valuation and making it harder to raise capital.	If the May 2025 drilling program was exploratory rather than infill, there is a risk that the new holes fell in “gap” zones with sub‑optimal grades.
2. Metallurgical challenges	New ore‑type data could reveal refractory gold, high sulfide content, or other mineralogical complexities that require more expensive processing (e.g., flotation‑cyanide, pressure oxidation).	Higher processing costs erode margins, increase CAPEX, and may push the project out of the “economic” range at current gold‑price assumptions.	The “Geology, Mineralization” focus often uncovers new lithologies; if the deposit sits in a complex volcanic‑sedimentary sequence, metallurgical surprises are possible.
3. Higher cut‑off grade required	The report may recommend a higher cut‑off grade to achieve a realistic economic model, effectively shrinking the resource.	A higher cut‑off grade reduces the amount of ore that can be mined profitably, shortening the mine‑life and cash‑flow profile.	The technical report may have revised the cut‑off based on updated cost assumptions (e.g., higher processing or logistics costs).
4. Infrastructure or permitting constraints	The report could highlight that the project lacks road access, power, or that there are unresolved land‑use or environmental permits.	Additional spend and time to secure infrastructure or permits increase project risk and may delay the start‑up, compressing the NPV.	The “Exploration” component often flags gaps in the “Project Overview” that need to be addressed before a FEAS.
5. Sensitivity to gold‑price volatility	The economic model may show that a modest decline in gold price (e.g., 10 % below the base‑case) pushes the NPV/IRR below the company’s hurdle rate.	The project becomes more dependent on a strong gold‑price environment, raising the risk of a negative market reaction if prices soften.	A fresh NI 43‑101 filing usually includes a “price‑sensitivity” table; if the base‑case uses a relatively optimistic gold price (e.g., US $1,900 oz⁻¹), the upside is limited.

How to Use These Scenarios

Investor Decision‑Making – Compare the upside and downside bullet points with the company’s current market valuation. If the upside (e.g., potential resource expansion, low‑cost processing) is not yet priced in, the stock may have upside potential. Conversely, if the downside (e.g., resource downgrade, metallurgical risk) is already reflected in the price, the market may be fairly valued or even over‑valued.
Risk Management – Identify which downside items are most material (e.g., metallurgical challenges) and monitor for follow‑up data releases (e.g., metallurgical test‑work updates, permitting milestones).
Strategic Planning – The upside scenarios (especially higher‑grade “sweet‑spots” and infrastructure proximity) can guide the next phase of drilling, pit design, or partnership discussions, while the downside scenarios highlight where additional spend or contingency may be required (e.g., for processing‑technology development).

Bottom line: The refiling of the NI 43‑101 technical report signals that GoldHaven has incorporated the latest drilling and geological data into a formal, independent resource model. The “upside” hinges on whether those new data points translate into larger, higher‑grade, and metallurgically amenable resources, while the “downside” revolves around any potential resource downgrades, processing complexities, or infrastructure/permitting gaps that could erode project economics. Investors and analysts should therefore dig into the actual technical report (available on SEDAR+) to quantify the magnitude of each scenario, but the framework above captures the typical range of outcomes that stem from a refreshed NI 43‑101 filing.

What are the potential upside or downside scenarios based on the technical report’s findings?

How to Use These Scenarios

Other Questions About This News