So on a basic high-level review I posted above, Metzke's Find is...

So on a basic high-level review I posted above, Metzke's Find is looking a little lost for the following reasons;

• Supergene HG largely mined out by old timers, grades quickly drop off in drilling below voids
• Quartz veins are randomly distributed inside a "1-4m biotite shear zone" though shear zone up to 8m thick seen in diamond core
• 1-2m significant assays will need to be diluted within a mineable host shear zone lode, down to LG truckable ore probably
• Large nugget effect seems probable given free gold visuals and very patchy assays within host shear zone
• MRE 15k Oz Au hosted almost entirely in hard rock, costly to mine/mill and difficult to not dilute with waste in the mining process
• Small economic mining inventory likely from very long but skinny ore-zone (ie low Oz's per strike and depth meters)
• Low Oz's per strike and depth meters means likely high strip, high cost tonnes for trucking
• Low Oz deposits suffer from high feasibility study, permitting, and mine overheads even as a satellite operation (especially these days, in WA)

Hack that I am, I really like to eye-ball the actual drill hole assays and review it against the MRE. There can be so much slicing, dicing and manipulation of data for an MRE estimation that it's often highly constructive to see just how conservative, outrageously generous, or even just accurate the resource geo has been with his art. If you don;t mind, and have the time, let's walk through DREbear's MRE model and see what we see (and if you don;t then foff and don;t bother is fine).



Notes from the MRE report:

"A total of five separate mineralised zones were interpreted, likely representing shoots developed within a single planar shear".. see above
"Gold distribution appears to be depleted from the oxide material, with minor mineralisation occurring in the transitional material."... wrong, clearly there is supergene enrichment of depleted oxide gold, as per mining voids (ipso facto) and shallow drilling HG hits within semi-oxidised drilling.
"All lodes were estimated separately using hard boundaries."... meaning grade intervals from one lode were not allowed to inform the grade of seperate lodes
" A first pass search of 40m with a minimum of 4 samples and a maximum of 8 samples was used which resulted in 75% of the blocks being estimated. A second pass with a search range of 80m filled the remaining blocks."... min 4 x 1m samples, even from same hole, within 40m allowed to inform grade of ore blocks first pass, then all other blocks filled with 80m search distance (presumably only 1 x 1m sample required)... not very robust sample averaging!

Working across the 5 lodes Sth to Nth, we have a 1-hole only ore block as per below... grade informed by MZRC042 1m @ 4.8g/t


Can the smart geo's please post how the hell a 1m @ 4.8g/t assay can fill an ore block with "10-9999 g/t Au" centred around that assay, then drop to 2-5 g/t for the rest of the block? Clearly this is BS. At best that 1m @ 4.8 g/t should be averaged down with the <1g/t hole immediately above it (green on LHS drill LS) into something maybe averaging 3/gt.

Next lode north only has 2 decent Hg holes, the rest are rubbish. I'm now thinking the yellow 10-9999 g/t scale is actually the 1-2g/t, there is no Orange, and no 10-9999g/t in the MRE model?? Anyway, a lot of 2-5g/t spread around by those 2 good hoes (2m @ 10.8g/t and 1m @ 12.5g/t only) when there are so many NSR to 2 g/t 1m intersections in the block... You can wireframe a 1-2m ore zone within a 4m shear zone but that isn;t reality and will dilute the bejesus when mining. Anyway, avg grade of the block reads somewhere between 2-5g/t, closer to 2g/t judging by colours



Next block north but no, that yellow really is <10 g/t as it aligns with the 3 thick Hg holes (16, 19 & 21). SO the yellow ore blocks in last two southern holes really are BS errors by the looks, because there simply isn't the high-grade intercepts to get there... seriously dodgy.

Lower grade holes line up with lower grade ore blocks, but of course the effect of grade smearing averaging into those LG intercepts from the HG holes means that <1g/t assay = 5-10g/t ore block, 1.8 g/t assay = 2-5 g/t ore block, etc. I'm actually happy enough this lode makes sense wihtin the parameters DREbear chose to use inside his hardwire boundary that conveniently excludes the NSR black dots above and to both sides of the 'ore shoot boundary'

Last 2 lodes north and it's certain now Yellow blocks are >10/g/t as per the most northern little supergene layer defined by 4 holes (how thick this layer really is needs infill drilling to test because 15m lower drilling is ~1g/t only). The bog ore lode rhs is carried by a couple of higher grade 1m holes and the 7m @ 7.5g/t MZRC017 (was that one of the two comp samples actually cut?).


MZDD001 btw should be 9.2m @ 1.5g/t interpolated into the block model, not the 1m @ 6.5 g/t as used looking at the grade imo. MZDD001 perfectly demonstrates the issue of cheery picking 1m quartz assays form a large shear hosted lode... the ore zone as per DRE's release had 2 above cutoff quartz assays returned over from the 9m ore lode, yet how does 9.2m @ 1.5g/t interpolate into ore blocks at >5g/t?? I'll tell you, the resource geo only uses one, ore both seperately, in their hard-wired ore boundary so that only high-grade assays are used to inform ore block grade... except that isn;t reality. It's an 'orezone' not a discrete quartz lode.



Long lunch Wednesday calls and times got away from me so I'll leave this post as is for others to chew on and the smarter geos to correct...

GLTAH