While we all wait for the next assays, I've worked on a more robust model to estimate resource size based on drill results so far. Good read for those wondering what factors are at play within this system. Also a good way to measure how good the next assays are when they are updated on this model.
I started with the significant intercepts table and picked out all the mineralized intercepts with no overlapping intervals. This is to get distinct grades and intervals that are then used for each CC fault calculation. Example below for hole ZDDH0001(Green are distinct intervals):
| Hole_ID | From (m) | To (m) | Interval | Au (g/t) |
|---|
| 1 | ZDDH0001 | 5 | 119 | 114 | 0.35 |
|---|
| 2 | ZDDH0001 | 5 | 15 | 10 | 0.55 |
|---|
| 3 | ZDDH0001 | 5 | 51.3 | 46.3 | 0.45 |
|---|
| 4 | ZDDH0001 | 12 | 13 | 1 | 1.64 |
|---|
| 5 | ZDDH0001 | 14.3 | 15 | 0.7 | 2.35 |
|---|
| 6 | ZDDH0001 | 33.64 | 39 | 5.36 | 0.97 |
|---|
| 7 | ZDDH0001 | 44.3 | 51.3 | 7 | 0.67 |
|---|
| 8 | ZDDH0001 | 64 | 65 | 1 | 2.5 |
|---|
| 9 | ZDDH0001 | 75.5 | 79 | 3.5 | 0.89 |
|---|
| 10 | ZDDH0001 | 75.5 | 76 | 0.5 | 4.82 |
|---|
| 11 | ZDDH0001 | 107 | 112 | 5 | 1.11 |
|---|
| 12 | ZDDH0001 | 117 | 119 | 2 | 2.05 |
|---|
I then assigned each distinct intercept an associated fault based on which fault was closest to the mineralized intercept downhole. I only chose 1 intercept per hole per fault to obtain the grade and thickness of each CC fault. Any other intercepts near a fault that already had a ‘major intercept assigned’ I classified as the ‘halo’of that fault. Example:
| Hole_ID | From (m) | To (m) | Interval | Au (g/t) | CC Fault | Halo | Interval xGrade |
|---|
| 1 | ZDDH0001 | 5 | 15 | 10 | 0.55 |
| 375 | 6 |
|---|
| 2 | ZDDH0001 | 33.64 | 39 | 5.36 | 0.97 | 385 |
| 5 |
|---|
| 3 | ZDDH0001 | 44.3 | 51.3 | 7 | 0.67 |
| 385 | 5 |
|---|
| 4 | ZDDH0001 | 64 | 65 | 1 | 2.5 |
| 385 | 3 |
|---|
| 5 | ZDDH0001 | 75.5 | 79 | 3.5 | 0.89 |
| 385 | 3 |
|---|
| 6 | ZDDH0001 | 107 | 112 | 5 | 1.11 | 400 |
| 6 |
|---|
| 7 | ZDDH0001 | 117 | 119 | 2 | 2.05 |
| 400 | 4 |
|---|
I considered the interval x grade in relation to the position of the intercept to choose which intercept was assigned as the main CC Fault. Some were easy to identify and some were fairly difficult such as this one. In this case I assigned the higher grades to the CC faults over the wider mineralized lower grade intervals which were classified as the ‘halo’. Plotted below with the diamonds indicating these intervals and their associated CC fault:
Note where the significant intercepts are located in relation to the IP anomalies. These diamonds are placed in the mid-point of each significant interval where coordinates were calculated using the dip and azimuth of the holes.
Now on to the calculation of the CC faults:
Width of CC faultCalculated as the average interval of all associated CC fault intercepts defined earlier
Grade of CC fault
Obtained by taking the sum of (interval x grade) and dividing by the sum of intervals for each associated fault. This is more accurate than simply taking the average of the reported grades as it normalizes it to the mineralized length giving a more representative grade across the fault.
Length of CC fault
Calculated using the coordinates of the CC fault intercepts by finding the largest distance between intercepts of each fault. This essentially gives you the furthest distance we have encountered mineralization for each fault and assumes everything in between is mineralized.
Depth of CC fault
Calculated as the deepest mineralized depth we have drilled for each associated fault. Downhole depth was converted to vertical depth and adjusted for surface differences depending on azimuth of hole.
Halo CalcCalculated in a similar way as the CC faults however using the ‘Halo’ values for each fault. Width is calculated using a few things however it is closely related to the CC fault width with a few other factors. Depth is calculated as the deepest halo interval associated with each fault(I may change this to be the same depth as the CC Fault depth).
Results are here:
| CC Fault | CC Fault Mineralised Intercepts | CC Fault Av Width (m) | CC Fault Av Grade (g/t) | CC Fault Length (m) | CC Fault Depth (m) | CC Fault Size (Oz) | Halo Size (Oz) | CC + Halo Size (Oz) |
|---|
| 1 | 750 | 1 | 9 | 1.34 | 0 | 37 | - | - | - |
|---|
| 2 | 700 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - |
|---|
| 3 | 600 | 2 | 10 | 1.69 | 10 | 60 | 810 | 6,962 | 7,772 |
|---|
| 4 | 500 | 5 | 5 | 2.98 | 90 | 179 | 17,707 | 4,472 | 22,179 |
|---|
| 5 | 475 | 10 | 22 | 2.99 | 115 | 189 | 112,646 | 75,771 | 188,417 |
|---|
| 6 | 450 | 7 | 10 | 3.50 | 183 | 230 | 112,937 | 19,152 | 132,089 |
|---|
| 7 | 425 | 9 | 13 | 1.90 | 142 | 227 | 65,506 | 55,512 | 121,018 |
|---|
| 8 | 400 | 5 | 12 | 2.00 | 185 | 178 | 63,847 | 81,522 | 145,369 |
|---|
| 9 | 385 | 3 | 8 | 2.43 | 64 | 140 | 13,325 | 3,372 | 16,697 |
|---|
| 10 | 375 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - |
|---|
| 11 | 200 | 5 | 4 | 2.63 | 95 | 151 | 11,123 | 1,720 | 12,843 |
|---|
| 12 | 175 | 5 | 3 | 2.75 | 113 | 201 | 16,985 | 4,461 | 21,446 |
|---|
| 13 | 150 | 1 | 4 | 1.41 | 0 | 165 | - | - | - |
|---|
| 14 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | - | - | - |
|---|
| 15 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 414,887 | 252,943 | 667,831 |
|---|
I've associated a lot of the higher grade CC500 intercepts with CC475 as they were located closer to the newly added 475 CC fault. The whole zone between 475 and 500 seems to be mineralised so it's hard to determine where 475 mineralisation stops and where 500 starts. Either way this shows what the company is trying to do with their drilling program. The more hits we get at wider and deeper locations for each fault, the bigger this resource becomes. This model has it's faults, assumptions and limitations however I think it's a good ballpark figure to track with each new hole.
