With Doug's permission...
I'm posting one of his replies to some Qs I put to him. Given the posts over the past few days on this board, I think he addresses a number of key points and questions raised, so it may be of interest to a broader audience.
Doug,
Thanks for your reply.
The reason I took time to write is that I've never quite seen a PR like this one. No, I'm not a geologist or a mining engineer, but as I've own a good number of exploration stocks over the past two decades, so I've read volumes of PRs.
If I may make a suggestion, you may wish to make a slide on two on your PPT presentation explaining the "Whittle Pit Shell" and why it's so important to MNR's Turkish properties. And why the mineralization outside the pits was not included in the resource calculation?
The fact the base metal component has now increased substantially also might change the dynamics of Peter's search for a local partner.
Best regards,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thaidiamond,
I saw a question mark, so I'm assuming a reply is welcome regarding the truncating of the resource calculation.
Oddly, Whittle is the last name of the Australian mining engineer who wrote the software that creates the shell by whittling down the resource.
A global resource calculation such as MNR produced last year includes every mineralized intercept. This can provide good numbers, but it doesn't address the key question - can it be mined?
The Whittle Shell modelling software ignores any values, even high grade values, that are not near enough to another mineralized intercept. It's purpose is to provide a realistic frame for future operations; it also points out inadequacies in the current data which is one of the best (most assured) ways to direct the next phase(s) of drilling - fill in the blanks between high grade stand-alone intercepts and the new pit shell model, thereby extending the boundaries of the shell and increasing the number of mineable ounces.
There are many juniors, maybe most, who continue to report global resource calculations, but those numbers may not represent economics. However impressive 3 or 4 or more million ounces might look in a headline, if they're scattered across too much space they are essentially meaningless.
I have yet to ascertain what a new global resource number would have looked like for Tac and Corak, but I can make a pretty good estimation based on my site visit last July when drilling was ongoing at the western extension of the Corak deposit. At that time we were pulling core with visible sulphides -there's no visible gold at Yusufeli, but it often answers to base metals and pyrite - and none of those western extension drill results are included in the Corak estimate. Some nice numbers, but too widely spaced to provide coherency.
The same applies to Celtik, at the eastern end of the trend, where over 18 metres from one of the holes reported in December ran +6 g/t Au and 0.9 percent Cu, a pretty good intercept backed up by a couple of others (widely spaced) but not enough to provide a third model. This will likely change this year with more drilling.
Mineralization at Yusufeli is generally narrow high grade vein systems, and accounting for the dead rock in between veins lowers grade but indicates mineability, which is alway tricker to estimate with vein systems than it is with consistently disseminated ore bodies. Vein systems can provide wonderfully high grades over narrow widths that look great on paper but are sometimes not realistic.
As far as your other inquiry regarding the higher base metal numbers, you're quite correct - they are much better than previously reported at Corak, indicating that they're worthy of attention, and also proving that MNR is not simply regurgitating old numbers but crunching a new database.
I think that possibly because the capped gold numbers are remarkably similar to last year's the market is confused, trying to find "newness". Also, as an MD from Victoria said to me today just after close, MNR's market is now separating speculators from investors; the speculators are disappointed and the investors can benefit from this lack of vision.
If necessary, I apologize for spelling mistakes and length of my reply - I'm still processing the NR just like most. You're quite welcome to post any of my observations to Stockhouse, if you find them relevant and/or contributing to clarity.
Regards,
Doug Hickey