Hi Charlie, I'm not privy to the algorithms that construct those...

Hi Charlie, I'm not privy to the algorithms that construct those diagrams, so I can't really comment on them.

However, in my DD I notice that within the 170m strike length there are several assays of less than stellar quality. The average assay of all holes reported on since July 2010 is 4.21%. That seems not far off the 4.38% reported from the bulk test - but we don't know the assay value of the cores that were used, so we can't tell what the recovery % is. BUT, is is encouraging.

On the other hand, the variability of the grade is startling. Look at holes DODH172 and 173, only two metres apart. Grades of 6.24% and 4.00% over 65m and 91m respectively. Move another 8m away and it drops to 2.11% over 54m in hole DODH169. That's why it is so important to know HOW the cores that were submitted were selected, especially if there are no assays for them.

Assaying bulk cores that weren't part of the bulk test seems pointless. Why not assay one quarter of each core (lengthwise) and submit the other three quarters for bulk test? Then you have a good idea what you started with for the test, and can see what recovery you get. Unless you know these details, you can't tell if the plant IS working efficiently which was supposedly the idea of the bulk test. All it has proved so far is that a series of cores, selected by geologists rather than at random, can return higher final grades than the JORC. They might be losing 30% in the process, though.