RE: Kees Dekker31 Dec 2018 08:50
The 2018 Kees report seems to be a cut/paste/rehash and add of the 2015 report, and I am intrigued as to why some one would do such a sloppy job..it does not read very well.
The very small percentage of the total resource for underground and open pit is a positive. It is not common to over drill the underground resources out much beyond 3-5 years production, and often less than this.
Some brief comments on undergorund. It is obvious that they have a very high 9if not spectacular) grade style of mineralisation. They are producing and developing from underground, and in doing this they obviously have a much better insight into the geology, geological controls on the mineralisation, grade variation and causes and controls on this variation, not to mention access to a significantly greater volume/mass of ore to determine the mine grade. Doubtless to say that this information and interpretation would be fed into the mine planning and resource modelling. To go on about multiple indicator krieging and other mathemetical modelling derived from very small volumes of core, which are then subsized down to 25 gm samples is academically interesitng perhaps, but missing the point. If the author is experienced, and has been to site and had the opportunity to review and question, then this sort of analysis should be presented, rather than a ct and paste fo matters 3 years ago.
Very often, there is considerable learning when one goes from mathematical modelling using volumetrically very small samples from drilling (and a lot smaller in assaying), to mining the orebody, when "all is revealed".
The trouble, regardless of what mathematical model you use, is that if you have very high grades, like they have in the undergorund ore (e.g 2.1m @ 308.4 gpt Au, 1.7m @ 354.8 gpt Au), and is obvious in many of the photos of the spectacular visible gold, is how you use the very small volumes assayed and sampled from drilling to extrapolate and interpolate.
So instead of rehashing the work from 2015, a more informative and professional report would have alluded to how they are adjusting to the new information coming in from actual mining in 2018. It may have been a top idea for 2015, but seems like he ran out of ideas and time in 2018. I would recomend that rather than issue half baked poorly merged reports, the author engage more with managment, visit the mine site or write about something else?
In short, a long confusing illogical ramble of a report, which mixes time lines and misses critical analysis.
Best
the gnome.
a lot of rubbish
Sign In
Follow the stocks
