Thanks again Coach for your great insights.
Based on your feedback this find seems more and more convincing. So far I have not found anything that should hold it back from developing into a producing mine in the future. Location is perfect, history of successful mines in the area, mill nearby, etc
In terms of the average I gave(24 g/t) it was actually the weighted average for all the reported holes in that report(as you outlined). I did the same for other news releases and got 7, 9, 9 and 60 g/t which all seem good to me. I did not include surface samples since they may not be representative(human nature to pick the good stuff?). The average vein width I got was about 80 cm. 0.8 m seems narrow to me(it would not take to many burgers to prevent me from passing through). Do you think that is wide enough for efficient and economic mining.
Do not quote me on these numbers since I may have occasionally input wrong number in my Excel file due to the large number of them. Another thing is that the averages I got does not include unreported holes. If there is a large number of unreported poor holes I would conclude that that is bad since it does not add value but you may still have to mine through that area
I suspect when you mine such an orebody with a 0.8 m vein which for most part is from 1 to 3 g/t and then every so often there is a very high grade(so the weigthed ave is still good), you still have to mine out the not so good stuff to get to the good stuff. This means, as far as I would guess, that since you already have spent the money to blast, crush and remove that material, you may as well process it through the mill to recover the gold.
The fact that at several occasions they now have confirmed very high grades pretty deep below the surface as well as the presence of very high grade(pockets) on the surface, indicates to me that this behaviour is expected to be the norm. I wonder it this is consistent with that of former older mines in the same region?
