latest bulk sample, page-5

parrothead, I have done both. The company states that their reply is not for publication.

JC, I'm not sure that the bulk testing can be regarded as representative of the "bulk".

Firstly, when you are mining, the bulk is extracted by a digger, rather than a drill. The cores will have different mechanical properties compared to a scoop of dirt and will behave differently in the grinder. Probably a minor effect in the overall scheme, but the company is talking about hundredths of a percent in their reporting.

Secondly, they used drill cores selected from strike lengths of 170m (first sample) and 245m (second sample). It is difficult to understand how such a short strike length compared to the full strike length of 1.2km, or the Central Las Minerale strike length of 700m, will be statistically valid. For the first test, for example, why not select seven holes 120m apart covering the whole of CLM? Or, to be completely random, use a random number generator to produce co-ordinates within the CLM strike, and use the cores from the first seven sets.

Thirdly, the selection of the drill cores for test two is based on drilling results and analysis from the geological team. It is certainly not a random process, and hardly one that can be replicated when excavating for production.

Fourthly, taking the first bulk sample, for which we have far more information than the second, it covers a strike length of 170m over an average width of 35m. The average core length was 75m. So we have a volume of ore body of 170 x 35 x 75, or 446,250 cu. m. At an average density of 2.93 this gives a total tonnage of 1.3Mt, or a bit less than half a years throughput for the mill.

Please note, I am not saying that the bulk test results are not representative of the deposit, just that I think there are several flaws in their determination which give doubts as to their usefulness; which could have been easily overcome by using statistical sampling techniques rather than selection by the company's geologists.