Top
Reply
Author: WillP -- Date:1999-02-17 07:53:46
Subject: Check Your Yacht's Hull
That's a reather big hole in the bottom of it!
Glad you got a 'kick' out of the analogy. :-)
You must be careful...you're poking holes in the analogy, not the
conclusion. But..hey...it's fun.
Reality is not quite like the game. The battleship has a one grid
point profile because it should be the hardest to find and
sink...whereas the minesweeper takes up four squares...to be the
easiest.
As miners...we are looking for minesweepers...the large orebodies.
Mother Nature 'does' have a voice...and she does answer. She
answers what she can given what we know from what she
answered in the past. We must simply be careful not to read too
much into her answer.
Drill a hole into grid H14. Mother Nature answers 'yea' or 'nay'...to
"did we hit kimberlite". She also answers a numerical value to "how
thick?". Further, she replies to your question, "how deep?"
Your point about the small spaces is noted. However...one can get
a bit carried away with 'small spaces'. Nature itself is more than
99% empty space...even you, on an atomic scale.
Drill many holes in a small area...each one hits...generally the same
thickness and all of those thicknesses are mineable. OK...it's a
comparitiely small area, but it negates the 'pleasurecraft' argument
*in that small area*. You also notice that the hits get deeper going
eastward with a predictable slope.
So...you decide to waste one round. Boom...the ship's main battery
opens up. You watch the trajectory...and glance at your
calculations. If your wild dream is accurate...you will hit
something...this thick...and at that depth.
There's a muffled sound of an explosion in the distance. Exactly as
hoped. You smile...but recognize the fallacy of assuming too much
of mother nature. Might have been a pleasurecraft. (Explosion
sounded real big though.)
You reload and bark the coordinates of another hypothetical target
far removed. Boom...ka-BOOM. The smile becomes bigger.
Again...as forecast. The pleasurecraft theory is looking a bit
weaker. You repeat this six times...all as forecast.
You receive communication from the southeast seas that your
flanking manouvre has caught the enemy and is having similar
success. All as forecast by your hypothesis.
The number of pleasurecraft exceeds the number of minesweepers
by a large number. If you hit something, it's most likely a
pleasurecraft. Most drill targets never become mines, after all.
But look at these results...How could there be so many
pleasurecraft? At some point the most likely answer becomes the
least likely, and the least likely becomes probable.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The question is...at what point does this hypothesis become
proven?
At what point..does a banker, say...buy your argument that you
have xx.x million tonnes of *proven* ore?
At what point does the OSC, BCSC, SEC...whatever...not
challenge your claim to have xx.x million tonnes of ore?
At what point does the investor come to the conclusion that a
certain project has xx.x million tonnes of ore?
I suspect that each and every one of us will have a different
threshold of confidence in what is 'proven' in our minds. And for a
darn good reason. The banker *absolutely* doesn't want to lose
his money. Some investors will take a bit of a risk for a bit of gain.
Others will take more..for more. And so on.
All this exploration stuff...all circumstancial. There's no eyewitness,
no smoking gun. Now it is possible to 'get a conviction' based on a
preponderance of circumstancial evidence. The question is...what is
a preponderance to you? To me? To the reader?
That is for each of us to decide.
But first...I personally choose to decide the answer to the
question..."How much do I need?", before analyzing the question
"How much do I got?" :-)
This was the point that "Tonnage" addressed, and "Figures" by
jspec fills that role as well.
Bottom line?
I propose that all of these drill results...hitting roughly the same
thickness of kimberlite at the predicted depth...implies strongly and
directly that it is a continuous sheet. No...that's not certain. I accept
the likelyhood in my mind...and the very strong likelyhood that what
*is* there is sufficient to be mined for at least 10 years.
To reject this...is a challenge to develop another hypothesis to the
question...
"Why are these 'pools' of kimberlite present, each roughly 2.5
metres thick and at predictable depths, wherever I have chosen to
drill?"
I'm over 90% certain of both grade and tonnage to support a 1000
tpd operation...and possibly just as certain of a 2000 tpd show.
And so, to QUALITY...the missing part of the value equation.
Regards,
WillP |
