Claude: I am going to disagree with you because the key here IMO is the DEPOSITIONAL PROCESS
(I have not read all the follow-up posts here yet - apologies if this is discussed further below; but this is a good dicussion, thanks for your participation, let's have another go at it!)
Claude, 'typical' PM deposits involve igneous processes - by their very nature, their distribution in the subsurface is complex (i.e. veins, hydrothermal alteration zones, etc). But the key to IPM's (and other dirts) is that they are SEDIMENTS - and there is much less inherent variability in their spatial distribution in the subsurface, owing to the nature of their depositional process.
Rivers, lakes and/or alluvial fans deposit sediment (and associated PMs) in nice, simple, horizontal 2D planes, one layer after another, stacking them up and subsiding/burying them. Simple and predictable - if you want to know their lateral termination, you just look for the facies changes. Sure, there is variability within a given facies/plane, but this is NOTHING like igneous/volcanic activity, which cuts thru the strata in 3D and in any shape or form (sub-vertical planes, random tortuous paths, sills, you name it). And even within each of these weird shapes and forms, the PM content can vary significantly. Hence it's no wonder you have to drill these deposits to death to prove reserves - and rightly so ...
... but with the desert sediments, the depositional process is much more predictable (in 3D space). This is the real beauty of this type of deposit - and this is precisely why it is so exciting to me!! (as a sedimentologist). THIS IS THE KEY POINT, and is precisely where the MEGA potential lies with IPM and all these desert dirts - because if the PMs are really there in quantity, then their distribution is going to be relatively predictable (compared to hardrock PMs), and it will be a no-brainer to mine the stuff - NO complex subsurface geological model required to figure out where the next shear zone or vein cuts thru the strata (for example), instead you just need a bit of oil-company style subsurface sedimentary analyses! Hence I would argue strongly that the number of subsurface control points required to esimate DD reserves is, accordingly, much less than 'typical' hardrock deposits.
Now, let's look back at some of your points:
1)<<IMO, the 1st grid is not even drilled enough to establish a proven reserve...holes drilled 100m (4X US standards of 25m) apart are simply not enough..for the bankers. I doubt any 3rd party will sign on proven
reserves with that>>
Aaahh, you're thinking like a hard-rock man: think 'sediments', and nice simple 2D depositional surfaces, layer after layer, year after year, boring, simple, predictable (wonderful!!) IMO the first grid has PLENTY holes enough - at least if you are comfortable with the depositional process involved. You may be right that a 3rd party or a bank won't sign yet, but I would then say they need a sedimentologist on their staff :-)
2) <<Based on the grades announced in June, in Feb97 and in 1995, the deposit is not homogeneous. Grades vary widely. If you want to optimize your processing plant and methods, establish exact budgets...you NEED to know exactly where your stuff is, where are the largest concentrations, the weak and the hot spots...etc!!>>
It's all a question of scale - I believe that the variability you refer to is like walking into a forest and counting the number of trees from one grid to the next - the variability in tree density does not matter if the forest is HUGE, you can easily predict where the next tree will be, and you can of course log them economically. In comparison, a 'typical' hardrock PM deposit is more like digging for worms in the garden than it is cutting down trees - the worms are much more 'hit and miss' since their locationis much less so predictable (so you have to dig i.e. drill more)...
3) <<How will you test for mineralization at 100 meters below surface with one sample.. But I agree with you that this is more than enough to understand the surface expression of the deposit and have an idea of how far the stuff can be found>>
My "100 meters" referred to a GRID of every 100 meters across the surface of the property - at each 100 m spaced grid point, I would drill/sample ALL THE WAY down to bedrock (sorry if I was not clear before)
4) <<Now how many holes do you need?... Per US standards..probably in excess of 1500 holes per sq. kilometer.... That is a lot of drilling and sampling... Now let say they don't go by US standards and agreed with BD and Bateman that because of some homogeneity in some section allow them to drill at 50 meters (rather than 25m)...that would still be some 400 holes per sk.km and in excess of 25,000 samples per sq.km. >>
Again, I do not think the typical "standards" you refer to apply to this type of deposit (for the reasons I discussed above)
5) <<Rock, all this is based on how the miners do it nowadays and how the bankers want it as well... Maybe, doubt it, but maybe the BRX is a new case>>
Don't doubt it - consider it to be VERY possible!
6) <<Btw, what is wrong with a lenghty and exciting drill program that provide market excitement each time a new series of holes are issued?>>
Drilling is of course essential in both the oil and gold businesses, but it COSTS money - production MAKES money. But you have a point if one is not in the stock for the long haul ...
7) <<Sorry if I can get excited for now...I will be after the recoveries and new assay procedures are confirmed>>
Claude, if I can get you thinking like a sedimentologist, maybe I can get you excited RIGHT NOW! :-)
Rock |
