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: .Trev who wrote (17070)	3/28/1999 7:24:00 PM
From: WillP	Respond to of 26850

lol...yes. However, it's a good exercise. Give it a try. If nothing else, you'll get a feel for just how sparse the data is. (The JV geologists, and MRDI have access to the thicknesses from all the holes, so they're a bit better off.) Try plotting the values for each hole (or the averages if unknown) on a piece of graph paper, and try contouring the thickness. Then estimate the average thickness for each grid square. Note that the holes drilled on boundaries are consistently shifted in the same direction by Winspear. You'll see that: #1. There is a lot of interpretation required, and you may over or underestimate a given grid by 20%...but it should balance with a compensating error in the neighbouring square. #2. Even taking an average for all the holes, and counting squares that have been sampled, you'll end up with roughly the same amounts. #3. You will probably come to the realization that at least some infill drilling will be required to satisfy yourself that what you've estimated is accurate. In this regard, I don't think they should worry about tonnages greater than 5 million tonnes. The capital cost is well paid back at that point. It can be an enjoyable exercise....if you know it's going to turn out well, and you own shares....lol. Regards, WillP