Here is a link to the whole report. All of page 5 deals with how they arrived at the scaling factor. I don,t totally agree with it, and think it should be looked at again by some of us here, especially BOW and Hog whereas they have their own formulas, that this scaling factor is not used, (i think). If they used the ovoid formula, you dont have to scale the volume again by using that 68%, its not right to do that.

This excerpt, below; the last paragraph on pg 5;

Forpurposesofouranalysis,despitetheTesoroProject'sveinstructuresdescendingtodepthsofupto1000meters,weconservativelyassumeanaveragedepthof600metersinourorevolumecalculations.Bymultiplyingthevolumeoftheveincorridorbythedensityofthequartzhostrock,wearriveatourEstimatedOreTonnagefigurefortheentireTesoroProject,whichwethendiscountbythe32%scalingfactortomoreaccuratelyreflectinferredresultsfromthe43-101.Byapplyingthe29g/Tgradingfromthe43-101toourScaledOreTonnageEstimate,wearriveatourTotalTesoroProjectReservesEstimateof2,519,151ouncesofgold.

Sorry, the exerpt didn,t come out right, its in this link.

http://www.steliasmines.com/storage/news_releases/SLI%20Analyst%20Report%20-%20June%2022,10.pdf

By looking at this, they only apply a width for the whole vein corridor at .5 m, thats ridiculous! The main corridor probably averages close to 900 m wide, not to mention the branch off of the new corridor. For them to arrive at that estimate, was a waste of time and IMO not done properly. IMO, there are too many flaws in their math to even consider what they say.

BOW, whenever you get time down the road, (I know you are busy now and my thoughts go out to you), can you please go back over this and see if it is legit to use a scaling factor in our case/s.