Ann: Meteoric Forging Ahead on Multiple Fronts, page-24

Combining all the interval lengths (some are approximate as one needs to estimate then off a chart) with % of each mineral and the % of each Cu in each mineral (see my previous post in this thread and the one below) while noting the price of Mo is very close to 3 times Cu, then I end up obtaining a CuEq over the whole 255m of the core of about 5%CuEq. If I am close that is extremely impressive over 255m. The reason it is so high is due to the amount of Mo (ie 60% of the Molybdenite) and the high price of Mo compared to Cu (3 times) (see this post for my comment on the Mo https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann-judd043-intersects-200m-thick-zone-of-disseminated-sulphides.6124877/page-53?post_id=54223850).

If only 20% of Mo is contained in Molybdenite rather than 60% then the CuEq is about 1.85% - still impressive over 255m. But without the Mo included the Cu is only 0.25% CuEq (ie nothing great). While I have the least confidence over the 60% of Mo in Molybdenite, comparing it the the %Cu in the copper minerals with the chemical make up suggests that around 60% is at least sensible (at least not a stupid result).

Please do your own research as this is my rough estimate and it very much depends on the amount of Mo in Molybdenite (60% but I only found this in a very old piece of research dating back to 1924).

I still don't understand how they estimate the % of each mineral in the cores (which is another reason why I don't have high confidence in my estimates). Who knows maybe I misinterpreted the graphic on page 4 of their 24 June announcement (but it is a pretty simple graphic and the 2nd para on page 2 of the announcement states: "The graphic log shown in Figure 1 records the parent (original) rock type or lithology. Observed alteration types and vein types together with their intensity and abundance is illustrated graphically. The percentage abundance of important economic copper and molybdenum bearing minerals is also recorded in the geologic log.")

I am very happy if someone believes my analysis is crap (with valid reasons) as that way I will learn from mistakes. I do find it difficult to believe that CuEq could be 5% or even close to 2% but that it what my analysis suggests.

If I am within a reasonable range of the eventual assay results then MEI SP is going to soar. But my analysis could be complete rubbish and the assay results nowhere near my estimates.