@brewhaha you come across as an intelligent person here but really what are your qualifications please and your agenda??? For a person that claims to know what they are doing you have very obviously (or purposely I suspect) not compared apples to apples when showing these results and you also have actually missed out some of the results in your above map too.
For a start the previous assays were based on the total hole with a cut off grade of 0.4g/t whereas the assays provided in yesterdays announcement only showed widths where the grade was > 0.6g/t. I have put all the results from yesterday into a spreadsheet and sorted them by hole so we can see what difference a higher cut off grade makes so for example:
Hole OX-RC-16 was reported as being 70.1m @ 1.2g/t but if you just took the info from yesterdays announcement with grades > 0.6g/t it would just show as being 15.26m @ 4.54g/t
Hole OX-RC-17 was reported as 61m @ 0.49g/t but if you just took the info from yesterdays announcement with grades > 0.6g/t it would show as being 12.19m @ 1.3g/t
Hole OX-RC-18 was reported as 76.2m @ 0.29g/t but if you just took the info from yesterdays announcement with grades > 0.6g/t it would show as being 12.18m @ 1g/t
Hole SE11-001 was reported as 450m @ 0.48g/t but if you just took the info from yesterdays announcement with grades > 0.6g/t it would show as being 62.75m @ 1.33g/t
Hole SE12-002 was reported as 140m @ 0.45g/t but if you just took the info from yesterdays announcement with grades > 0.6g/t it would show as being 36.61 @0.96g/t
Hole SE12-004 was reported as 180.m @ 0.53g/t but if you just took the info from yesterdays announcement with grades > 0.6g/t it would show as being 41m @ 1.58g/t
So you can clearly see that with the higher cutoff it is NOT showing the true picture of the holes and the project. I asked Louie today why all assays werent provided and he said that document is well over 100 pages long. I bet if you included the widths with a cutoff of 0.4g/t (as opposed to just the data provided of grades > 0.6g/t) you would have quite different results and that is what obviously supports this JORC. Remember this is not a thin veined underground mine we are talking about. If proved up it will be bulk mined in an open pit and heap leached which is not only cheaper but means that every truck load of dirt will contain gold.
As to other holes not reported. Well they were drilled and assayed but they didnt have widths with grades > 0.6g/t and that is why they dont show up in yesterdays table.
In addition your map also conveniently leaves off 3 of the grades > 06.g/t on hole OX-RC-07, one on hole OX-RC-12 and one on hole OX-RC-15 too
So basically while you provided a pretty map it is based on incomplete information and not relevant IMO as it only reports grades > 0.6g/t whereas previous results had cutoff grades of 0.4g/t and the JORC was based on 0.18g/t which is comparable to the cutoff grades used at Fort Knox and Victoria Gold's Eagle mine which used cutoff grades between 0.1 and 0.15 g/t.
As to the comparison to just Fort Knox being a flat mine, you conveniently didnt compare it to Victoria Gold's new Eagle mine, which IMO is closer to what we have at Estelle, which is anything but flat and in the middle of no where if you look at their construction videos.
Always happy to hear contrarian views but I dont like it when people post mis-leading info like I believe you have. You seem to have a real grudge against this company and I am still trying to work out why and what your agenda is.
(20min delay)