RE:Visualizing the Drill Programs at OrenadaNP,
This is an interesting way to visualize the data for comparing the potential RE for the two programs (e.g. pre-2009 and post 2009 to now). There are many ways:
- AZX was showing, slide 5 of the Corp Presentation, a comparison, but this is too crude. You can eye-ball and make some kind of guess, and perhaps can say that the new RE would be something like twice the 0.5Moz (2009). But, this is a pure guess and there is no details on the grades of the intersections to back it up.
- Other company would create a 3D model and show where different grades (different colours) are located.
- Corebox: https://www.corebox.net/
would have actual data, company staff just put them in as they have them available from the lab. This is a great way to store the data and visualize the data to decide on the next drill hole (drill planning) and they could presumably work out a rough estimate of the RE themselves (by-law they must have an independent consulting firm to do the RE for them, but for internal consumption, this tool is good. There are many examples, but since I played with PRB before, clickon Probe and play with the cut-off to have a feel where the concentration of high/low grade would be located.
- Back to your chart: Just by looking at the density of the "data points" the post-2009 data would significant improvement on the RE. But the last chart is quite interesting.
As I understand it you have multiplied the gpt to the intercept (m) to get gptm for the vertical axis (the scale is small, so I just want to make sure), and anything over 25gptm would be considered economical. So let's draw a horizontal line at that level and anything above that would be good. Right? Note, if you move the line down a bit, say to 20 gptm. You would include a lot more orange points than purple points (sort of sensitivity analysis).
I counted 13 purple points, but have not counted the orange points (for sure more than 26). But perhaps we need to work out the areas covering those points to get a better factor. A rough eye-balling exercise give me x4, i.e. the post 2009 would be x4 better than the RE of 0.5Moz, i.e. 0.5 x 4 = 2Moz = $200M for Orenada. Too much?
Great job NP. Hats off to you.
GH
--------------
NextPhase wrote: Hey All,
I wanted to see how the recent drill results compared with the 2007-2008 drill results used in the first resource estimate at Orenada. I knew the recent results were better, but by how much? Well, I created several charts to explore this question at a high level. Two things really stood out for me: the amount of drilling between the programs and the improved grades in the current program (the orange zone are much better than the purple zone) .
The first chart compares core samples by the length of intercepts and the grade of each intercept. The length of the bars is the total length of intercepts (if you had place each intercept next to each other horizontally). The color represents the avg. au grades between 0 and 4 g/t in increments of 0.5.
The second chart is a histogram that counts the number core samples that have grades multiplied by intercept length above 25. Any sample below this 25 number is disregarded for this analysis.
The third chart is a scatter plot that compares the order of when a sample was drilled and the resulting number from multiplying intercept length and grade.
For example, an intercept length of 100 with a grade of 2 g/t would result in a final number of 200. The top intercepts from this calculation have annotations with more detail. The color indicates which drill program the sample belongs to.
After visually analyzing this data, I must admit it's difficult for me to temper my expectations about the upcoming resource estimate. Although this is only a high-level analysis, it's clear to me that the recent results are substantially better than the first fifty holes drilled in 2007 and 2008. This also may explain the increased interest in Alexandria.
Let me you know what you think,
NP