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 : Winspear Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Walt who wrote (7614)	8/9/1998 1:21:00 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 26850

I think you have hit on all the areas of difficulty. As hard as it is to say it is A it is equally difficult to say B. This can be both a hindrance and an advantage depending on your point of view. There is often a tendency to try to define too cheaply the average. Or to hope for too high an average or rule it out. In gold it is rare that the recovery is less than the average sample. Too much biasing of samples according to tonnage probabilities can be misleading. This is why kriging is often preferred as it tends to make better statistical guesses than grade width, etc. Interestingly the kriging process degrades in cases of extreme randomness to the arithmetic average! I prefer the technique where the average sample in the ore zone is taken regardless of any weighting. Given competent recovery techniques it allows for many errors. The errors or dilution just tend to average and win or lose in a random fashion. First thing I want to know on any property is what is the highest grab or channel section? I already know the average and I know the lowest. The "average" sample on a gold mine is zero. The lowest is zero. But if the highest is .20 then I get the feeling it is out of my economic range. I have one where the highest section is 20.0 ounces. Now you know there is gold there. EC<:-}