Marcos,
In primary diamond deposits such as kimberlites, stone sizes AND stone values are lognormally distributed. This means that a small percentage of the stones are large AND a small percentage of the stones are responsible for most of the value (apparently neither Kaiser or Bishop appreciate this fact). Other important factors are stone density (# of stones per tonne) and grade variation.
Prior CF results already suggest high stone densities, and more importantly, low variation in stone density(from this I infer low variation in grade and value), in addition to high grades in terms of carats per tonne. With the CF results from the 70 or so holes drilled last year, the more homogeneous (or less variable) the CF results, the higher the confidence limit will be in the grade(I would guess that acceptable confidence limits would be at the 90% probability level or higher). The nature and design of the program for 1999 infers that the variability in the CF samples is low and that the confidence limits are high.
Without question, the probabilities of repeating or exceeding the results from the two 100 tonne samples are very high. IMO, the bulk is just empirical confirmation of what we already know.
What does all of the above mean? Its really quite simple: hold on to what Winspear you have, and if you can, buy more. |
