Thanks for keeping me out of bed ben92 and Whitetail, I just...

Thanks for keeping me out of bed ben92 and Whitetail, I just couldnt resist going over your numbers and then double checking my calculations tonight.

Just compare with your calcs / intersection widths ben92, I have stuck with your down hole intersection depths, same as mine.

Here are my calcs;
250m - 300m 50m @ 2.11% Cu
Including 263 - 283m 20m @ 3.7% Cu
Including 273 - 283m 10m @ 5.86%

So we are all in the ball park. And those numbers look pretty economical to me, just as long as we Mobs more of similar percentages.

Just for comparison, ben92 your calcs below;
50m @ 2.12% Cu from 250-300m
Including 20m @ 3.67% Cu from 263-283m and
10m @ 5.88% Cu from 273-283m

Your calcs below Whitetail, but I noticed you started your calcs from 254m, as opposed to ben92 & myself starting at 250m.
54m - 300m BOH
Av Chalcopyrite per m 5.42% x .345
= 56m @ 1.87% copper

254m - 283m
Av Chalcopyrite per m 9.86% x .345
= 29m @ 3.4% Copper

273m - 283m
Av Chalcopyrite per m 9.86% x .345
= 10m @ 5.86% Copper

ben95 you used the 34.63% Cu in Cpy as opposed to me using the 34.5% Cu in Cpy.

My Cpy %'s are derived from my old WA School of Mines & Metallurgy books, as below. Royal Imperial College London 1947, crikey, that was the year I was born ! LOL No doubt through better techniques than the old XRD analysis of the Cu in Cpy, someone has found a little bit more Cu in Cpy obviously using Electron Probing of 30u thick Polished Thin Sections.

So good times for ALL here, and thanks Guys for going to the effort to reveal your calcs and intersection intervals.

ben95 Cpy 34.63 %Cu derived from the below quote, mine from the very old days !!! I think my old text books have almost stood the test of time. LOL




Have a look at the Published Date ! LOL