Yep, his peers must have been wrong too by the looks of things,...

First 47 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
buddy134

24,386 Posts.

176

24/08/20

09:13

Post #: 46757042
Share

Originally posted by Chalco ↑

OK DBD, I concede that I did read that a bit quickly. From the evidence presented to date by the company, where do you come up with an average of 5g/t Au along the full length of the orebody? Your grade assumption is completely flawed. They did put out a resource estimate out that had an Indicated grade of 2.41g/t, just a bit under half the grade you seem to have rounded up to. Maybe at a higher cut-off grade you might get it a bit higher, but their long section shows that the orebody is very discontinuous at u/g mining grades. Then you say, assume the orebody is 6m true width. Where do you get that from? The long section published by the company displays results for about 14 holes they drilled during 2019. There appears to be only 1 of the holes, that's not in a future crown pillar, that exceeds 6m true width, and that's 10m at 2.8g/t, which no one is going to bother going underground for. Why do you make up such nonsense? Do you not believe the company's own reported drill data? Let's have a look at some of the holes reported in the middle of the ore body;
MF19RC166 - 3m at 1.2g/t,
MF19DD187 - 6m at 3.6g/t
MF19RC167 - 4m at 3.6g/t
MF19RC178 - 2m at 3.2g/t
MF19DD203 - 6m at 2.1g/t
MF19RC174 - 2m at 1.6g/t
These are the company's own recently reported intersections, and the pizza coloured long section indicates that there are plenty of lower grades than that. Where's the 6m true width and 5.0g/t? No one's going underground on this rubbish.....and don't bother with all the DMR historical intersections, they were rejected for good reason I expect.

Expand

Yep, his peers must have been wrong too by the looks of things, or totally overlooked it.

AMG Price at posting: 5.3¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply