Not looking at dimensions but just in terms of SG – it really...

Not looking at dimensions but just in terms of SG – it really does depend on what domain you are dealing with or if you are just trying to apply an average across the lot for a back-of-the-envelope.

In the shallow oxide zones, I would agree with SG around ~2.5 or even lower in very soft-ox material.

In the vuggy transitional zones maybe ~2.7

In the fresh sulfide zones anywhere from 2.7 through to 4…depending on sulfide species and modal abundance. The stick of core in figure 5 of today’s announcement is probably up around 3.8. But as an average across the higher-grade sulfide intervals, I would use ~3.

So you would either use these SG's (or equivalents) individually against each domain, or make a judgement about the relative proportions and importance of the different zones (oxide/transitional/fresh etc) and plug in a combined average value - depending on how conservative or bullish you feel.

It does raise an interesting parallel question – now that CNB are focused on diamond core drilling it would make sense to be density weighting intersections in addition to the standard interval weighting.
Without the 1m assay splits from MHD0083 its not possible to show - but as an example with the earlier pXRF numbers and making some assumptions on SG (varying between 2.7 and 3.2) this would result in a further ~10% grade increase due to density weighting.Certainly not uncommon to have SG calculations (either field or lab based) done on a per sample basis for mineralisation of this nature.