@Noobtrader1 Hey Brother have to agree with brother David in that the assumptions now are becoming fairly complex to absorb.. If you want to get a handle on why then I can offer this research doc link (194 pages) which explains in full the difficulties in estimating continuity of grade and resource estimation in a similar style of system..
Basically it's trying to calculate via block modelling and various analysis methods (Kriging etc) what the final result will be because as the first 16 holes showed we had gold grades in every meter almost of between .005 and 56 g/t..over a factor of 3000m plus of drilling.
Based on a review of all downhole data and averaging all AU g/t grades recorded we arrive at a fully diluted av g/t of .475 g/t... and all but two recorded gold in meter 1
| Hole ID | From (m) | To (m) | Interval | AU (g/t) |
|---|
| 1 | ZDDH0001 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.08 |
|---|
| 2 | ZDDH0002 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.01 |
|---|
| 3 | ZDDH0003 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 0.32 |
|---|
| 4 | ZDDH0004 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 0.14 |
|---|
| 5 | ZDDH0005 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.02 |
|---|
| 6 | ZDDH0007 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.03 |
|---|
| 7 | ZDDH0008 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.17 |
|---|
| 8 | ZDDH0009 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.04 |
|---|
| 9 | ZDDH0010 | 0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.005 |
|---|
| 10 | ZDDH0011 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.02 |
|---|
| 11 | ZDDH0012 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.11 |
|---|
| 12 | ZDDH0013 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0.6 |
|---|
| 13 | ZDDH0014 | 0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.15 |
|---|
| 14 | ZDDH0015 | 0 | 11.9 | 11.9 | 0 |
|---|
| 15 | ZDDH0016 | 0 | 5.3 | 5.3 | 0 |
|---|
So you either apply that to a whole area to get an approximate feel and .475 it soon adds up when you extrapolate out over a few sqm as per the model put forward by the company.
Or you can split the two mineralised classifications and identify what is above cutoff (.2 g/t) and what sits below..
And over the full 16 holes the split between greater and less than .2 g/t looks like this.. 23.57% above and 76.43% below.. And this is where it gets interesting.
|
| 23.57% | 76.43% |
|---|
| 1 |
| Interval (m) | Interval (m) |
|---|
| 2 | 3008 | 709 | 2299 |
|---|
Because even though grades below .2 g/t are considered uneconomical and therefore non reportable they are still held within the rock and still report to the leaching process and in fact over an area the size of the model shown below kick in 244,464 oz at a recovery rate of 98%.. The value of which is shown in both IG values and spot sale price values.. It aint chicken feed and is a nice little kick back towards production costs to balance that equation and make the whole thing fairly profitable..
| 1 | | Cutoff | Length | Width | Av Depth | SG | av g/t | RR | % Ratio | Resource | Weight | POG | Sale E/Value | ***** igV () Peer 0-150 | iG E/Value | SOI | SP |
|---|
| 2 | 0.2 g/t | 750 | 600 | 260 | 2.5 | 1.92 | 0.98 | 23.57% | 129,724,372 | Grams |
|
| 45 | $203,556,998.86 | 488,000,000 | $0.42 |
|---|
| 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 100 | $452,348,886.35 | 488,000,000 | $0.93 |
|---|
| 4 |
|
|
|
| 292,500,000 | tonnes ore |
|
| 129,724 | Kilos |
|
| 150 | $678,523,329.53 | 488,000,000 | $1.39 |
|---|
| 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
| 6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4,523,489 | Ounces | 1300 | $5,880,535,523 |
|
|
|
|
|---|
| 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1400 | $6,332,884,409 |
|
|
|
|
|---|
| 8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1500 | $6,785,233,295 |
|
|
|
|
|---|
| 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1600 | $7,237,582,182 |
|
|
|
|
|---|
| 10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1700 | $7,689,931,068 |
|
|
|
|
|---|
| 11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1800 | $8,142,279,954 |
|
|
|
|
|---|
| 12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
| 13 | <0.2 g/t | 750 | 600 | 260 | 2.5 | 0.032 | 0.98 | 76.43% | 7,010,727 | Grams |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
| 14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
| 15 |
|
|
|
| 292,500,000 | tonnes ore |
|
| 7,011 | Kilos |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
| 16 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
| 17 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 244,464 | Ounces | 1300 | $317,803,271 | 45 | $11,000,882 | 488,000,000 | $0.02 |
|---|
| 18 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1400 | $342,249,677 | 100 | $24,446,405 | 488,000,000 | $0.05 |
|---|
| 19 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1500 | $366,696,082 | 150 | $36,669,608 | 488,000,000 | $0.08 |
|---|
| 20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1600 | $391,142,488 |
|
|
|
|
|---|
| 21 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1700 | $415,588,893 |
|
|
|
|
|---|
Av g/t for 16 holes using only values above .2 g/t was 1.92 g/t... For all metre values below (the majority in fact) the av g/t sat at .032 and yet it still delivers 7million grams of gold.
Now please bear in mind this is just an extrapolation exercise to show how even trace amounts of gold within the host lithology add up, but the continuity of grade inherent within IRGS systems indicates that any extrapolations shouldn't be too far off the mark..
For me it was just another exercise like we did at the beginning to try and determine fair value at present and therefore if you believe the math then my gut says at 32.5 we are undervalued by a reasonable measure and should see 42-44c at least based on the ***** in ground value multiply of $45..
And when Zeff says mineralised from surface I'd say it is true for the hole area as I doubt it was limited to just the first 16. Plus the area shown on the latest drill plot shows it isn't..
Area shown above was approx 750 x 100 x 192 av depth for first 16 holes
We are now at 5x that original drill hole multiple of 16 and cover a fairly big area mineralised from surface as indicated with the salmon hue.
Now I would love to think we are 850 x 800 x Av Depth 260+, as per the last announcement, but until we see the model I'm happy to just work off 750 x 600 x 260 av depth. for now. Plus it's showing a healthy figure to dream about as it is..
GLTAH 8tey
