Winspear Resources Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Winspear Resources

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: .Trev who wrote (17064)	3/28/1999 6:27:00 PM
From: WillP	Read Replies (1) of 26850

Greetings Trev: Sure I'll explain it...and I really should have when I presented it. I'm sitting here a bit dumbfounded that I actually didn't. Many of the squares do match closely...and many do not. For the ones that do not... Determining the supposed average thickness in a grid requires some systematic sampling of the grid...on the boundaries, and internally. Many of the grids had only one or two holes drilled...either off to one corner of the grid, or maybe one centre hole. So...I kept in mind the average thickness (oh...2.5 metres) and the results for neighbouring squares as well. For instance: Consider a grid with one centre hole. This hole gave a depth of 1.5 metres. However...the square to the east had three holes drilled, all on the boundary with ours, and these returned a depth of 4.0 metres. Well, from the data available...our grid's thickness slopes rapidly from 1.5 metres to 4.0 at the eastern border. Similar in other directions. Remember that we are still operating with sparse data here as well. I do think the 200 metre spacing will have to be "filled in" to meet the requirements of feasibility. Follow?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next