Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Veteran98 who wrote (62378)	11/27/2008 9:57:35 AM
From: E. Charters	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78409

I don't know. 70 million tons? Info is too fuzzy to make an estimate. Its ranges are pretty broad, and hard to see averages etc.. EC<:-}

To: Veteran98 who wrote (62378)	11/29/2008 4:33:59 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 78409

I notice they have included a lot of high grade in those estimations. They say no cut backs, which I guess is fair, and cut off of 0.5 grams on the included areas, but if you do arithmetic on the zones, there is a fairly high contribution from the narrow 1.5 metre high grade zones to the total over 25 to 75 metres. What this means is unclear. Sometimes the contribution is over 50%, which is dangerously close to stretching, sometimes it is only 25% or less. Is the gold there over widths? Good question. It should be. But is it fair to take say 4 or 5 metres of really good grade and grind up all that barren or near barren rock in between? I used to reject a porphyry unit in assays that ran 0.05 opt. Today many in open pit would look upon that as grade. There is a fine line however where the economics start to demand pit bottom selection, which is rarely practiced to perfection. One place where pit bottom selection does save is in capital cost. EC<:-}