>>I'm saying that you said that the grade of the next set of holes would be higher because of some deposit model you proposed<<
Show me exactly where I said that the grade of the next set of holes would be higher. I never said it. You just think I said it because that would be the exact opposite of what you said <g>. I did show a table of statistics from producing VMS mines, but only to put ANY Tambo Grande result into a context. Your buddy teevee was ranting about VMS deposits being such a common item and how TG-1 was crap because it was fine grind, low grade and small. I just wanted to show you, him and everyone else how TG-1 fit into the deposits that are producers. As you can see, 40 million tonnes can't really be considered small, 2% copper can't really be perceived as low grade, and fine grind is being mined at lots of other VMS deposits.
The statistics will be the only thing that improves with the next set of holes. MAN can not create something that is not there. They are trying to reliably measure a statistic on TG-3. I am pointing out in my posts that you only have 12 points with which to calculate a statistic. That specific statistic is an average grade. What is the error on that average grade? Is it 1% copper +- 1% or is it 1% copper +- 0.2%. How good is the average grade of a 600 meter by 400 meter object calculated using 12 points? What is the error on that average grade?
Let's look at the FACTS:
FACT 1: There are 12 holes with assays on TG-3.
FACT 2: The TG-3 gravity anomaly corresponds to a sulfide lens.
FACT 3: TG-3 sulfide lens remains open on all sides but has been contained at depth.
FACT 4: Two out of 15 gravity anomalies are caused by massive sulfide mineralization.
FACT 5: TG-1 represents a resource of 42 million tonnes averaging 2.04% copper, 1.47% zinc, 0.36% Pb, 37.7 g/t Ag.
FACT 6: TG-1 is underneath a town and can not be mined until the town moves.
RE TG-1: It is not an entity to be considered until the town moves.
RE TG-3: It is an undefined resource until further tested.
RE all other gravity anomalies: They are unknowns until tested.
My speculative stance is that if MAN has enough money to go out and drill test all 15 gravity anomalies, MAN will eventually come up with a mineable reserve. That is my bet. You have a right to yours.
>>I'm saying that for the average grade of the deposit to get to the economic threshold, it's going to take some huge change in the deposit model that you can't explain or predict, just like the last prediction you made.<<
How good is the model we have of TG-3 now? How reliable? If we group 9, 5, 4, 7, 11 together (since they are the closest together) what do we get? Look at hole 9 and hole 5, 100 meters apart. At 376-383 meters in hole 5 there is 7 meters of 2.38% Cu and 0.32% Zn. At approximately the same interval in hole 9, 362-379 meters, there is 0.78% Cu and 3.51% Zn. Are these the same lens? Or is that interval in hole 5 related to the one at 307-353 meters in hole 9? Now look at hole 4, 100 meters from 5, is the interval from 324.9 to 357.0 meters the same lens as 376-383 in 5? What happens to that same lens in hole 7? Do you feel that you should group all the assays from 9, 5, 4, 7, and 11 together as one yet? I'm not confident enough to do that yet. Perhaps MAN is not confident enough to do that yet, and that is why they are continuing to drill. Seems logical to me.
>>So, I can conclude, along with the pathetic market response to this world class discovery, that it's only going to get worse. So why are telling me to wait? For what? When the data change you change the model. That's science or promotion?<<
The model is simple Elizabeth- there is a sulfide lens with very little statistics on it at TG-3. With more statistics the predictions are better. You are telling everyone that there is no hope with MAN, let alone TG-3, so don't bother wasting your time with statistics. I am saying, wait for more statistics before you write off TG-3. The facts are showing us a sulfide lens that is a minimum of 600 meters by 400 meters at TG-3.
The model is only as good as the data used to make it. If the model changes with more data, that is good science. In any feasibility study, I want to come up with predictions that are reliable. The model will have to change until that condition is satisfied.
Here's some science history- the model for the human body that was most accepted by doctors used to be that it was composed of humours. By balancing, through bleeding, these various humours, you could assist someone to health. Thankfully, almost every doctor changed the human body model once they got more data <g>. If we were posting on whether the human body was composed of humours, your stance would be equivalent to saying don't bother looking at the body, it's insignificant. Progress depends on open minds and new data.
The Tambo Grande area is a massive sulfide district. That's a FACT. It is forevermore a massive sulfide district even if MAN never develops a mine. I can see the geologists correcting the textbooks already, and revising their models <g>. Science will never be the same because of this omission in the VMS model <g>.
There are 2 out of 15 gravity anomalies that are caused by massive sulfides. What kind of model does that suggest for the remaining gravity anomalies? I am saying that with MAN at Tambo Grande there are another 12 chances to find an economic VMS deposit at Tambo Grande. Look at any district equivalent in size to the Tambo Grande project in the VMS world (Noranda, Iberian Pyrite Belt, Bathurst Area, Flin Flon, Kuroko etc) and assess for your self the potential of 12 targets in a massive sulfide district. |
