But my question is how did you arrive at those dimensions? Not trying to be antagonistic I'm just genuinely curious as to where those dimensions came from, are they volumes of a cone, volumes of an elongated truncated cone or simple cubic volume calculations? What SG did you use to get from cubic metres to tonnes of rock? Are your assumptions that no additional gold exists outside the Mineral Resource Estimate?
If you are referring to the skinny zones in your post above with the purple dashed lines - which I think you are, then first of all this is a long section of one of the many repeated zones that have previously been wireframed, and it's a long section that cannot show stuff in front of or behind the long section, and from the scale on that long section - the drill hole intercepts are between 140-180m vertically below the current land surface so they are within open-pittable mining depths, or, if they are indeed very narrow and high grade might lend themselves more to underground mining methods.
What exactly are you trying to say here, they have wireframes of numerous lodes used to constrain and build the inferred resource. Is your concern the minimum mining widths, the resource block model cell sizes or are you suggesting some sort of grade smearing in drill results?
Here is a question for you from this current ASX release about DDD047, just taken in isolation in the map and cross-section view, what would be your concerns about the reported downhole intercept of the 33m @ 2.4g/T Au that you see here?
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)