Maiden Resource Estimate (MRE), page-13

Let's start off here...

Wasn't a typo however if you refer to last paragraph it will explain somewhat. CC475 has just popped up out of nowhere and I had assigned a lot of the previous CC500 intercepts to CC475 as they were 'closer'. I have since revised and assigned the intercepts according to what the company has reported in their commentary to keep things consistent(although I do think previously reported fault association could change with new info). This gives us a linear length of 153m between holes 21 & 23.

Yes & no for this one. New intercepts in locations of 'known' mineralisation that are added can still adjust the grade and interval width which in turn impacts the resource size. They also increase confidence in the model(geological and resource estimation) so even if the resource size remains the same with an added assay, value is still added. In saying that, unless we consistently hit much higher grades at larger intervals, increasing the length and depth of the CC faults will play a larger role in estimated resource size.

You've found one of the mains issues with this model! For your first point, as i don't have access to the raw data I have to work with what is provided in the significant intervals table. This means that there will be a few lengths of low grade mineralisation not accounted for per hole. In the big scheme of things this is insignificant as the higher grade and more significant intercepts are accounted for. Adding these intervals in will only impact the halo calculation by slightly decreasing grades. It will likely also increase the halo 'area' depending on location.

The second point is the biggest issue which introduces the largest error to the model. If you refer to Bellas post 47085351 and have a look at the last diagram, you will see how the faults vary in width and shape with length. This makes it very difficult to model accurately. I've only used the downhole width for the calculation as I'm still thinking of a way to adjust to get a reasonable 'actual width'. We are drilling with a dip of 60° and when drilling into a vertical structure your downhole width will be longer than actual width. See example below on how that relates to the shape of the CC faults. In the first hit, true width is 70% of downhole width whereas the second hit it is 50%. There are likely instances where the inverse is true for some lengths of the fault where true width is wider than downhole width.



The JORC commentary looks at this however company reports that they don't know this with certainty yet. I'm sure with more holes they will get a better understanding of what each fault looks like to eventually then model the resource.



Further to this, there are likely other faults and geological structures that break up this continuous column to possibly look something like this:


Then think of what this looks like in 3d with multiple planes of breaks in the CC fault structure. Gets rather complex.