Redrilling is a better word than verifying. The new holes should be drilled as close to the originals as is practical.
FWIW here is what I think:
If you imagine a volume of rock 2' x 2' x 3'
> this is approximately a tonne, more or less depending on the density of the rock.
>
> Now one ounce of gold is slightly less than the size of a sugarcube.
>
> 3 grams per tonne is 3/31.1 ounces or less than 1/10 the size ,
> approximately, of that sugarcube.
>
> Now distribute that gold throughout the tonne of rock (12 cu ft), and make sure that the gold particles are a mixture of differently sized particles, some very fine, and some ranging to the size of a pinhead or slightly larger.
>
> It won't take too many gold particles to occupy the space of 1/10 the size, approxiamtely of a sugarcube.
>
> Now compare the sampling methods used.
>
> Freeport Bre-x
Core depth to 300' to 1000' or more
>
>1. Core dia. size 1" (rumour) 3 1/2 "
>
2. Core split in 1/2 yes (rumour) no
>
>3. Crushed 1/2(rumour) all but 10 cm length/meter
>
>4. Sample size 15 or 30 grams (rumour) 750 grams
>
>5. Assay method Fire assay rumour) Cyanide leach with AA finish
>
6. Accuracy Recovers all gold Underestimates gold
>
>
> As you can see, IF the Freeport drilling is correctly shown here, the Freeport assayed samples are 25-50 times SMALLER than Bre-x's AND were obtained from a smaller volume of crushed core which were obtained from a core of SMALLER volume.
>
> Therefore the Freeport samples have a much greater liklihood of containing fewer gold grains, and especially so if most of these grains just happened to be on the coarse side.
>
> Therefore, the Freeport results HAVE to be less representative of the bedrock from which they were taken than the Bre-x samples.
>
> Of course the Freeport holes are not going to go away. But you need to find out the exact nature of the size of the holes and how the core was sampled.
>
> On another matter:
>
> Freeport have 25 years experience or more in that part of the world. They, of all people, should know how to properly handle the drilling, sampling and assaying and because of their experience would most definitely know the consequences of assaying smaller samples because they are rich enough to be able to employ competent staff who know these things.
>
> Therefore I conclude that they DELIBERATELY chose to drill and sample in such a way so as to present smaller samples to the lab, KNOWING that the liklihood was that the amounts of gold reporting in the samples would be substantially reduced.
>
> I believe Freeport, because of their experience in Indonesia knew full well of the possibility of very large gold deposits being found and that it came as no surprise to them to learn that someone such as Bre-x had found one.
> After all they are involved with Grasberg, Ertsberg, Kelian and goodness knows how many more in Indonesia.
>
> So it seems to me that Freeport (now having 15 % and being operator) wanted more. The corporate culture of Freeport indicates that this is not out of the realm of possibility for them to engage in this type of deception. So they arranged to "leak" the poor results, mentionning that they were preliminary and incomplete, KNOWING the devastating effect this would have on Bre-x stock (these are very highly experienced guys in this game, also powerful and they basically have Suharto in their pocket.
>
> So Hassan, Freeport and Suharto are all picking up loose stock.
>
> Munk is really upset that he got "shoehorned" out of the deal and he and his buddies are also in the market getting some of the stock that shakes loose, too.
>
> Maybe also some others.
>
> I could be wrong, but there seems to be some consistency to these ideas.
>
> Hope this helps. Steady as she goes.
>
> Russ |
