Hey, k-man. I appreciate your reminder of days past. We did rather glibly speak of the multi-million ounce potential of this deposit. I do not yet see evidence that this potential has been reduced. It just takes more time and effort to get there than was brought forward at the time.
In fairness, it was me who brought the idea up (although with a different intent), but criticizing the resource developed based on a number of holes drilled is somewhat misguided. You should really consider the number of metres drilled. Until we see the report in full, we'll have to make do with summary statistics, but the average hole is only 177 metres long, based on the reported 47,377 metres in 268 holes. Using a little trigonometry, and applying the historical 60 degree dip, you discover that this ends up sampling to a depth of about one hundred and fifty metres from surface, some of which is waste.
Also, I know that a number of the recent holes were substantial step-outs from the known zones of mineralization, especially at T2. Without knowing better, I'd be wondering if those step-outs wouldn't be excluded simply because there wasn't any adjacent drilling to meet the minimum inclusion criterion.
I'm not trying to refute what you've said, khareema. Yes, we are only 5% of the way to our goal, if you want to call it that. But the first step is always a small one. SGS has concluded that the gold is structurally controlled. Prior interpretations did not support that view. This whole reply is really an acknowledgment that I have so very many questions in my head, and with the report not yet filed, I have no way to even try to answer them.
I well remember Mr. Tilsley's comments that it was his job to kill the project. To date, they haven't been able to do that. The multi-million ounce potential of the deposit remains on the table, in my opinion.
Lar
