For newbies like me, I asked Grok for a comment
"To assess whether this is a "good result" from a gold exploration or mining perspective, we need to consider several factors commonly used in the industry to evaluate drill results. These include the grade (grams per tonne of gold, or g/t Au), the width of the mineralized zones (in metres), the depth at which they occur, and the geological context (which isn’t fully provided here). Let’s break it down based on the data you’ve shared:
High-Grade Intercepts:
0.9 metres at 19.0 g/t Au from 157.8m: This is a high-grade but narrow intercept. A grade of 19.0 g/t is significantly above average for many gold deposits (where economic grades often start around 1-5 g/t, depending on the operation). However, the narrow width (0.9m) limits the volume of material.
2.15 metres at 4.0 g/t Au from 177.8m: This is a moderate grade with a slightly wider intercept. While 4.0 g/t is still economically interesting for underground mining, it’s less impressive than the other zones.
8.2 metres at 22.4 g/t Au from 186.0m, including 3.4 metres at 52.7 g/t Au: This is an exceptional result. The combination of a wide intercept (8.2m) with a very high average grade (22.4 g/t), and an even higher-grade core (3.4m at 52.7 g/t), suggests a significant concentration of gold. Grades above 20 g/t over meaningful widths are rare and highly promising.
Depth Consideration:
The intercepts occur between 157.8m and 186.0m down hole. This depth is typical for underground mining targets rather than shallow open-pit deposits. Whether this is "good" depends on the project’s intended mining method and cost structure. Deeper deposits require higher grades to offset extraction costs, and these results (especially the 8.2m at 22.4 g/t) appear robust enough to justify further investigation.
Continuity and Scale:
The presence of multiple mineralized zones (at 157.8m, 177.8m, and 186.0m) within a ~30m down-hole span suggests potential for a coherent mineralized system. However, this is just one drill hole (AMD001), so the lateral extent and consistency across additional holes would be critical to determining the size of the resource.
Evaluation:
Positives: The grades, particularly 22.4 g/t over 8.2m and 52.7 g/t over 3.4m, are excellent by industry standards. These suggest a high-quality gold system, potentially economic for underground mining if continuity is confirmed. Wide, high-grade intercepts like this often generate excitement in exploration results and can boost investor interest.
Caveats: It’s a single hole, so we don’t know the size or shape of the deposit yet. Narrow intercepts (e.g., 0.9m at 19.0 g/t) add value but are less impactful unless part of a larger system. Depth (~160-190m) implies higher costs unless the deposit is large and rich.
Conclusion:
Yes, this appears to be a good result, especially the 8.2m at 22.4 g/t (including 3.4m at 52.7 g/t), which stands out as exceptional. It’s a strong indicator of significant gold mineralization, but its true value depends on follow-up drilling to define the resource’s size, continuity, and economic viability. For an exploration company, this would likely be considered a success worth announcing and pursuing further."
(20min delay)