I have looked a little more into this and found out the following:

When potential open pit mining materials are being considered, the cut-off tends to be between .25 and .35 gpt.

When underground mining materials are being considered, the cut-off tends to be between 2.5 and 3.0 gpt.

Prodigy Gold's NR was based completely on an open pit mine viability which they calculated in economic detail.

Eagle Hill's is based entirely on underground mining which is a lot more expensive.

My question is how did EAG come to the rationale that only underground mining should be used to extract the gold? Especially given that SRK did the work on the NI 43-101?

The reason I ask that is SRK has been doing these reports for Rainy River and they typically have a lot more information contained within them including a break down of which of the resources are economically suited for open-pit mining and which are best for underground mining.

Here is an example of an NR that includes both open-pit and underground estimating for an area that is about twice the size as Windfall:

http://www.rainyriverresources.com/NewsEvents/Press-Releases/Press-Release-Details/2011/Rainy-River-Resources-Announces-Updated-Mineral-Resource-Statement1125813/default.aspx

They seem to be fine with using a mixed method mining approach in their updated resource statement. Has EAG compared the two methods before preparing their resource statement?

Has anyone heard a rationale as to why open pit does not seem to be an option here? Is it based on hydrologic factors within the immediate area?

Given that open-pit mining is much less cheaper than underground mining, is there an option here?

M1.