Chart update, page-86

The Hedgeless Horseman here,

I did post on CEA about my thoughts on the nuggety gold fears and all the talk about there being simply ONE explanation for the mineralization:

I am personally hesitant to just paint the mineralization with a broad brush. We don't know the time lag between the different conglomerate layers and what geological activity took place when they were created/deposited.

We may end up with many different layers showing different continuation/grade/mineralization etc. Also, let's say we have three layers of nuggety gold in the lower part of the conglomerates. Those nuggets would/should probably be distributed differently relative to the other layers...

In terms of mineralization, let's say we have one sheet of patchy gold, then add a second, and finally a third. What are the odds of a drill not hitting any nuggets/halo? It would then have to dodge nuggets in THREE different layers with "random" distribution. I kinda look at it as grade/continuation diversification. I have not seen anyone talk about that fact. /Just my 2 cents

http://cdn.ceo.ca/1d19an6-NovoFigure3.png

I don't know how deep the detectors go and therefore how many layers deep this Kirkland slide includes, but what if it's 1 (might be the best one though)? This is the lateral view:

http://cdn.ceo.ca/1d19at8-Kirkland-Lake.JPG

How do you completely dodge nuggets in this area when the vertical cut looks like this? (nevermind the halo fine gold effect!):
http://cdn.ceo.ca/1d19b8r-NovoFigure2 (8).png

Not that every patch of land will be as rich as these trenches, but multiple layers actually de-risk this project quite a lot in my humble opinion. Let's say it's a "typical" alluvial deposit, in that case we might technically have multiple deposits that are stacked. A big difference in terms of mineralization/grade/continuity diversification I would say.


Best regards,

www.thehedgelesshorseman.com