Hi Chief - thanks for your reply and sentiments - always nice to know someone will take the time to read such a lengthy post...
You are correct in stating that the use of topography is simply another tool to define the limits of the deposit. From what I understand - and I haven't seen Mr. Pravicini's report - this deposit is somewhat surficial in nature, so in this case the topography defines one of the boundaries of the deposit. Producing inferred and indicated estimates is indirectly linked to the topography in that it (topo) helps defines the boudaries in which the assessment is being made. Does this make sense? It's pretty complicated, how the scientist pieces together the various types of data, and along the way makes assumptions to fill in the gaps.
You are absolutely correct in stating that these deposits - and this goes for most - are not continuous, homogenous ore bodies. This is probably the most contentious issue. How does the scientist define the potential or the deposit? This is the main issue the third party contractor will be addressing - How well did Mr Pravicini's data set represent the ore body as a whole? not an easy thing to do considering the total mass of samples he collected is only a very, very, very small fraction of the total deposit. But, this has been done for years, and the practice is, while not perfect fairly reliable. (I do feel too much was made here about the 30,000 oz correction - statistically, based on his data set, this did not change his estimate).
Anyway, as they say, "the proof is in the pudding." What is in the pudding, will hopefully soon be defined.
This, being a visitor, is my last post of the day...please feel free to e-mail me directly: taanders@mines.edu.
thanks and keep up the quality discussion, toma |
