its a question of credibility now, page-42

davidcasey I politely suggest you do more in depth research rather than blast Tetlom and others with respect to their analysis.

You and some others are simply not comparing apples with apples here. CAP does not have 69.9% iron and 2.5% silica in the ground. All the Fe grades quoted by CAP are concentrate grades ie. a possible grade of the iron concentrate that may be produced after beneficiation at a grind size of 38 microns.

CAP seem to report only concentrate grades with no reference to the head grade (the actual grade of the iron in the ground). This adds to the confusion. Tetlom is quoting the head grade; the concentrate grade in this particular instance is 64.2% iron.

IMHO head grade is preferable when calculating a mineral resource. This is because the head grade for iron, silica, alumina etc is pretty much what it is and cannot change significantly whereas the DTR grade can vary widely dependant on sample type and quality, methodology, grind size etc. Are copper deposits quantified by % copper in the ground or % copper in the concentrate? Which would you prefer to see? Personally I would like to see both.

BTW 5hareholder has kindly queried the head grade question with CAP in response to an earlier question.

Unfortunately I cannot find any CAP head grade data but I will estimate these from ROY data (Braemar Formation) and compare with AVZ and GBG -

ROY (CAP?) 25.9% iron 41.4% silica

AVZ 24.1% iron 42.5% silica

GBG 36.5% iron 42.7% silica

From this I would guess that Hawsons has a head grade range of about 20-28% iron and 35-45% silica. Of course not all of the iron may be magnetite as suggested by lower DTR (mass recovery) percentages.

....and incidentally tonnes are not everything, dont loose sight of the DTR % (mass recovery). It is an important part of the equation!