@seals Look at the Big One resource estimate in a simple...

@Mice00 I'm topping up by the double b-double load as we speak

@seals Look at the Big One resource estimate in a simple way...

Assume a cut-off grade of 0.45% Cu as they did in the estimate

Assume it's 200m deep though only one or two intercepts above cut-off are down towards that depth, one with at 138m and one at 172m.

Assume it's 500m long though there are only two holes above cut-off outside the 150m long main mineralised zone. Those two holes run true widths of 0.5m @ 1.58% Cu and 0.9m @ 0.6% Cu so they won't add many tonnes.

Assume an SG of 2.6, average of weathered and fresh rock.

2,100,000 tonnes / 200 / 500 / 2.6 = 8.1m true width.


The average depth of the twenty-nine intervals above cut-off is about 50m. Allowing for the 55m search radius in the modelling let's say the mineralisation above cut-off extends to 105m depth.

The main mineralised zone is 150m long with sub cut-off grade holes to the east and west. Let's say it's 200m long including extrapolation in the modelling.

Now if you look at the twenty-nine intervals above cut-off , their average true width is only 2.3 metres.

Now 105 x 200 x 2.3 x 2.6 SG = 125,000 tonnes.

An order of magnitude and some different from the published number!!!!!!!!!!!!


But what about those 40m intervals in 301 and 303, you might ask????



BO_303RC was announced as 40m from surface @ 1.64% Cu...

CCZ sent me the assay spreadsheets for 301 and 303

For 303...

the first 23m run 0.1% Cu then
the next 11m run 4.47% Cu - I used this in my estimate

The mineralisation dips at about 85 degrees not the angle shown in this schematic so the "game-changing" intercept of 40m @1.64% Cu is better described as 6.2m @ 4.47% Cu, still a great interval but much more in keeping with the narrow lode which is the Big One.

In my estimate hole 301 went from 44m @ 1.19% Cu to 6.6m true width @ 3.55% Cu.