"So now you are hanging the whole thing on 5 individual metres which were assayed by a method picked by the company which turned up more copper from those particular metres than the assays done by a reputable laboratory using a standardised, recognised method which - as discussed ad nauseum before- it used to eliminate the nugget effect."
Excuse me? Your tone offends me. I'm not the one putting out the info, I'm just sharing with others to help them make up their minds. My disclosure states my position and sentiment. people should take this into acocunt when reading what I write. What makes you so sure that the standardised approach is suitable for this resource? It is standardised, not perfect. I'm not pretending to be an expert but it seems logical to me that if you use a method to measure something that excludes an amount of resource then whatever was excluded will be upside when mining commences; meaning that the resource is understated.
My point is that there appears to be more copper than the standardised recognised method shows. This is because the samples mentioned had nuggets over 3mm big in them. A lot of the resource appears to be like this. I'm not after pie in the sky increases of whole percentage points in the copper content, but surely this is worth .1,.2,.3...%.
It has been well documented that there has been a lot of visable native copper in the core holes. 3mm is not that big at all. Get a ruler out and have a look. The term nugget is nearly falsifying how small that is.
Blythefan, as a non holder what is your motivation in writing such long passionate replies on something that should not affect you? I'm happy to hear a balanced viewpoint but your tone implies that there is something more than a passing interest at play here.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?