Ann: Citigold Drilling Results 2013 , page-10

okra wrote

"Not an argument find8 I agree with you, but and I know this isn't the case here, I would rather find narrow veins at 50-60 grams per tonne rather than wide veins at 2 grams per tonne. One aspect of the announcement I liked and that is the plant is ready for when mining recommences, hopefully not too long either".

I'm not a mining engineer - so I'd like to have an expert explain what these drill results mean. CTO should interpret these drilling results, or better still, get an independent expert to interpret and sign off on the results.
Are the results good enough to justify CTO embarking on mining the Central Area?

That $100 million (which is funding the development) will still need to be paid back I assume.

In the meantime (until we have an expert opinion) - running my untrained eye over the results.
That 50 metre gT was just one intercept - most of the better intercepts (90% of them) were in the order of 1 to 2 metre gram tons.
These are the better intercepts!
What's more, most of the intercepts were in the order of 0.3 to 0.4 metres.
An ore body of 0.3 to 0.4 metres width suggests a lot of dilution - if you consider the development tunnels are 5 metres wide - that's a dilution of 12 to 17 times.
So even that one off intercept (50 m g t) becomes 3 or 4 g/T effectively.
What's more 90% of the intercepts are 1/50th of that.

An open cut gold resource of say 2g/T will probably be profitable.
Which suggests to me that for an underground mine you probably need 5g/T (after dilution!).

These drill results are nowhere near that.

Maybe CTO is justified in going ahead with the Central Area and I'm missing something - but it would be nice to get an explanation from them.

CTO needs to respect shareholders.