Tomato,
Author: WillP --
Date:1999-02-14
17:47:56
Subject: Not So Small :-)
You are of course correct
about the 19% KLA
involvement in the Back
Lake claims. Sorry about
the finger trouble there...I
was typing fast and had my
wife urging me to spend
some time with her.
I apologize for not proof
reading.
You read too much into my
words. I stated I had
sufficient involvement in
those...through my
investments....which
coincidentally are primarily
Aber and Winspear.
You are of course correct
that Aber is in neither. But
I am...through Winspear.
Aber *is* involved in
other...similar claims. It
was a rather hurried
all-encompassing
statement.
I know what I meant....but
tried to say it all in too few
words. Sorry :-)
However...I suspect you
are trying to read too much
into everything in an
attempt to determine who I
am...etc.
I'll attempt to reply to your
other questions...perhaps
later tonight. I find myself in
a similar predicament
tonight, you see. :-(
Short answer...
No. I have no active
involvement on the boards
of any NWT publicly
traded exploration
company.
More later. I promise.
:-))))
Cheers,
WillP
Top
Reply
Author: teevee --
Date:1999-02-14
18:45:16
Subject: I'm a raging bull
Doug, I wish to point out
that I did say average
values. This means exactly
that....average values for all
stones of a certain size,
regardless of the number of
gems. Guestimating grade
for a kimberlite is never
easy, especially when you
consider and appreciate
that grade must be
expressed both as carats
per tonne and the average
value per carat, expressed
as $US/ tonne. The reason
why I believe the average
grades reported as carats
per tonne are reliable,
given the comparatively
small sample size of the
200 tonne sample, is
because the geological
structure and the CF
results separately infer
fairly homogeneous
diamond distribution at
Snap Lake...certainly much
more so than typical
kimberlite (this means the
confidence limits are very
narrow, statistically
speaking). As the CF
results indicate that
diamond distribution is not
perfectly evenly distributed,
perhaps WillP could
calculate a Poisson effect,
which in all likelyhood
would further raise the
grade......or maybe we
could use a statistical
moving average scheme
like Kriging in an attempt
to link CF results as
reported on the gridded
map showing compiled CF
results to a calculated
grade? As for the average
value per carat reported at
$301.00 per carat as being
reasonable, because I
"accept" that the average
grade of the two 110 tonne
samples as carats per
tonne is representative of
the cone sheet (at least
where there are CF results,
if not over the entire cone
sheet), or if I may , the
parcel of diamond
recovered from the 200
tonne sample is also
representative of the
kimberlite body( if you
took another 200 tonne
sample, you would get a
similar parcel), I "believe"
the average values assigned
to that parcel of diamond
are representative as well.
Remember, as variation in
grade distribution
decreases, so does the size
of the sample required to
determine the grade. As for
the little exercise you
refered to, as in average
values and predicting what
the bulk sample grade will
be, there are lots of ways
to do this, however, the
point I wish to convey is
that in my opinion, the
$301.00 per carat average
value is resonable and
representative, if you
"believe" the geology and
CF results indicate/infer
fairly homogenous diamond
distribution in the kimberlite
body at Snap Lake...in
other words, do you
believe the grade
distribution is homogenous
enough to have
"confidence" in the average
grade of two 100 tonne
samples? Do the CF
results and geology infer
this? I think so, but
apparently others and at
this time, the market
disagrees. From my point
of view, with respect to the
"market's confidence", I am
just early. regards, teevee
PS I put a hard hat on
WillP for when you hit me
on the head with some
statistical probabilities.
|
