I had to think about how to deal with some of the descriptions...

I had to think about how to deal with some of the descriptions of mineralisation contents, but I've had a crack at this and came up with the key and table below. I broke down the intervals to include all available detail. I present three different scenarios -

(i) a low estimate where the actual sulphide contents are at the low end of the threshold - 50.3m @ 2.1% Cu
(ii) an optimistic high estimate where actual sulphide contents are at the high end of the threshold - 50.3m @ 4.2% Cu
(iii) a pessimistic case, which takes into account, for example, that within an interval with stated "minor-moderate" sulphide content, the actual content only has to reach "moderate" levels for a very small interval (e.g. 10cm) for the statement to be factually correct. So all of that interval (accept for said 10 cm) actually has minor sulphide content. - 50.3m @ 1.4% Cu

Grades are interval weighted:




It's anyone's guess which of these is closest to the truth, there's too many unknowns - it would have been nice to see good quality photos of chalcocite in the upper Cu zone, and abundant disseminated bornite within hematite (rather than just blebby mineralisation). Even the chalcopyrite photos (the easiest of the sulphides to capture in photography) don't look great. There is also a lot of clast-rich material in the photos of the Cu zones. In these deposits, generally, more clasts = less matrix = less sulphide. I haven't seen any reference to matrix-supported breccias with Cu and these usually carry the best grades...

Also keep in mind that humans tend to overestimate the abundance of coarse grained sulphide mineralisation and underestimate fine-grained mineralisation, so blebby zones could be overestimated, disseminated zones underestimated.