1) Stockwork and rosaries are not shaft mined if there is considerable splay with mineralized veins at the surface. You are/may be correct about the diseminated gold, although the halo effect has not been fully sized yet. I approached the "what if" aspect of not having diseminated gold before, thats why I gave you the distances between some veins so you could average the grade over distance. You didn,t do that yet I see.
You should not be using nr,s from when the POG was $300 per ounce for showing us the economics of diseminated gold like you did in your post. Did you forget that quick our discussion on cut-off grades now? Dynacor does not have the exact same mineralization as us. Although they are most likely part of the same system, there are differences in their vein structure. The targets will not have the same responses as the anomalies, we have several different things going on here, to draw that conclusion is ludicrous. For example: the signatures for the A-4 and C-1 veins are totally opposite because of the minerals present and the structures.
GEER, you say:
I would also like to point out that everything Sculpin posts are highlights... For every multi ounce sample there have been duds as well. From report for example.
Samples 314822, 314823, 314826, 314827, 314828, 314829, 314830, 314831, 314832, 314833, 314834, 314836 all returned gold grades under 1 g/t, many 0.2 or less.
8 of those above samples came from his almighty A4 vein(the one with the "nugget")...
I SAY: This area has been mined, and to still get high grade samples is amazing. You pretty much always have to take the lowest grade samples you think that are there, or otherwise your average would be highly biased to the upside. Its part of any sampling procedure and is used as a control factor. And the A-4 vein had more than 1 nugget! You are only seeing the nuggets that were present in samples, the other nuggets were part of the bulk sampling and mining that never got individually weighed.
When you are viewing the Titan images again, I beleive you should study them a bit more because you are missing an important factor between the chargeability and resitivity. Its apparent to me that you dont understand what you are looking at and are making false assumptions.
Yes, you do posts facts from news releases, but PLEASE, make sure it is from UP TO DATE NR,S. Thats not very intelligent IMO. And when reading the technical report, I suggest that you check the dates on the exerpts and follow subsequent up dates forward so you get the progressive info you NEED.
I said in my earlier post that Iwas impressed with the amount of DD you were doing, I still am impressed with the amount, BUT DEFINITLY NOT WITH THE QUALITY.
