"Based on the above and assuming the first two intervals grade 5% Cu (ie lower than my upper estimate for the third interval) and the Cu grade of the remainder of the hole is negligible then I estimate that the entire 55m interval will grade 1.75% Cu. If you halve all these grade estimates you get 55m at 0.87%Cu and if you double my original grade estimates you get 55m at 3.5% Cu. I'd go with somewhere between the two lower estimates (ie between 55m at 0.87%Cu and 55m at 1.75% Cu)."
and the reality is 55m at 0.6% Cu a little under my lower estimate and very disappointing I would say. Good gold grades in the near surface, so some small consolation in that.
Also I had estimated a grade of <8.23% Cu for the 3.49m interval from 56.67m in hole ZX‐18020.
The announcement doesn't give the grade for this 3.49m interval which was previously described in the dill log but it does say the 0.3m interval from 57m had a grade of 27.3% Cu. My estimate assumed a higher grade (that of 100% malachite) for a 0.5m interval, so turned out to be a significant overestimate.
If you assume that 0.3m of the original 3.49m interval has the grade of 27.3% Cu (as assayed) and the remaining 3.19m is virtually barren (need to assume this because no results have been reported for the remainder of that interval) then you get 3.49m at 2.35% Cu from 56.67m which is < 8.23% Cu, within my upper bound estimate.
and apparently according to some people I'm unqualified and not worth listening to. Esh
PXX Price at posting:
9.5¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
(20min delay)