Hi All,
The Table of results upon which this entire ASX Release is based (and this resulting thread) makes no sense to me. Worse, because it makes no sense it reflects poorly on the competence of the company, its Board, its geologist etc. And then to proceed to more bulk samples makes no sense?
The only things we have to go on are the Table itself, plus the 4th bullet in Key Points ("Results...........returning encouraging (Gekko Plant) 2,04 g/ton of Au average") - what does this mean? Head grade, tail grade, con grade? Statement above the Table: "An average grade of 2,04 g/ton of gold was obtained........in a total of a bit more than 89 tons." both seem to say that 2.04g/t gold was recovered, but from where.
JORC Code Table 1 attached should provide sufficient detail to understand the details, it speaks to this under "sub-sampling techniques and sample prep", and "Quality of assay data and lab tests" which basically say that they took roughly 14t bulk samples, sub-sampled 50kg, crushed and sub-sampled 1kg for lab analysis. These 1kg samples were sent for (what looks like BLEG - bulk leach of economic gold). The remainder of the bulk sample went through the Gekko plant to make Dore.
The table apparently compares two (really poorly defined) gold grades, and as it also includes two (again poorly defined) weights it is normal to assume they relate to each other. But then there should be two different lab analyses explanations but no.
But the main thing is that I would expect from either cyanide leach or gravity that the grade recovered in the con wold be circa 10 times higher (one order of mag) higher than the bulk feed grade??
So how to understand this protocol and the Table? Well first thing is that the gold is obviously nuggety (whole area is hence no JORC and cant drill accurately) so a nuggety approach to sampling and analysis should be taken.
We already know this and they say as much in the JORC Table. Also the grade of BS09 is 2 orders of magnitude higher than the other bulk samples and the picture of the panned gold shows visible gold.
I'm not even going into trying to discuss how the table should be setup (what other columns it should contain is basically the entire mass balance) because its too full of errors. For instance, did the plant only recover the same grade as was fed to it (2.04 Vs 2.48 g/t) if so that is terrible, or is this somehow a back calculated head grade from the bleg test? But if you look at the individual results 4 of the 6 went up by 1 order of magnitude (which I would expect from a gravity plant) suggesting its actually a comparison of Head grade to concentrate grade but then its comparing a leached con grade to (and where is this) the grams of dore recovered. But then one of the results BS05 has the same grades and one BS09 has 10.4 Vs 2.87g/t.
Two of the results are completely overwhelming the other 4 so the averages cannot be compared due to either poor sampling or analysis (basically poor approach and poor data provision). So the Table is meaningless, as certainly the headline statement of the 2.04 and 2.48 are meaningless as their definitions and context make no sense.
So, whats wrong? Well for one the taking of representative samples is incredibly difficult in nuggety ore - 50kg from where in the 14t?
And then sample prep (crush/grind), with soft visible gold its very easy to lose it in the crusher and grinder as it smears on the metal surfaces - did they sand clean the equip befoe and after to ensure no contamination and full recovery?
And the analysis, it only tells us they did a cyanide leach and how the result of that was returned (Atomic Adsorbtion) but how was the head grade of the bulk sample analysed. This is normally analyses by pulverising and leaching say 3grams. Sometimes a screen fire assay and a fire assay is used??
It all makes no sense to me so doing more sampling seems silly?
KRUM
