Curt22go
I am sympathetic with your pursuit of the unfettered truth/meaning of that early March 43-101. Please recall my Mar.9 post question repeated below:
3% cutoff?? Sandbagging?
posted on Mar 09, 10 09:34AM
"Note: The resource at a 3% cutoff stated above represents a
tabulation of blocks above a 3% nickel grade."
I was always under the impression that "anything over 1.8-2% Ni was good (hence included in the reource estimate).
I wonder what the tonnage would be if a 2% cutoff was used. Anybody profficient with NUMA yet??
Thanks in advance to the smart people." "
Obfuscation is the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret. Obfuscation may be used for many purpose...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation
I'm inclined to think that the obfustication of the 43-101 data has resulted in the intended sandbagging (aka lowballing) of the true resourse size until :
A) blockade was over; B) keep sp down (and predators away) while awaiting end of blockade; and C) results of the >than 1150m+ deeper drilling at the "Nest".
Not a bad plan, actually. Peter
Peter
3% cutoff?? Sandbagging?
posted on Mar 09, 10 09:34AM
"Note: The resource at a 3% cutoff stated above represents a
tabulation of blocks above a 3% nickel grade."
I was always under the impression that "anything over 1.8-2% Ni was good (hence included in the reource estimate).
I wonder what the tonnage would be if a 2% cutoff was used. Anybody profficient with NUMA yet??
Thanks in advance to the smart people.
Peter
