RE: RE: RE: RE: too bad that the hole Let's see, you were bragging before about NES being high grade deposit. Sorry, anything at 1g/t and lower is NOT considered high grade you loser.
Yes, NES' Ana Paula deposit is a high-grade project. What part of the high-grade breccia that is 20% of the drilled area don't you understand. They have defined a structure of 250 metre strike x 150 metre width x 250 m depth at over 3.0 g/t au. That is a high-grade starter pit near-surface good for allowing cash costs of sub $400 for the first 6 years of operations and to speed up initial payback (assuming a production profile of 300k+ ounces / yr minimum). The breccia is still open in all directions and to depth.
If a deposit has 3 million ounces of low grade gold, and 2.5 - 3.0 million ounces of high grade gold, the low grade gold doesn't matter as much. I don't know why you're even calling NES' bulk tonnage low grade.. how are these holes low grade?
1. 15 m @ 0.66 g/t au, 23.6 g/t ag = 15 m @ 1.13 g/t au equivalent
2. 25 m @ 2.03 g/t au, 2.6 g/t ag = 25 m @ 2.05~ g/t au equivalent
3. 37 m @ 1.03 g/t au, 22 g/t ag = 37 m @ 1.5 g/t au equivalent
You're arguing a 6 million ounce deposit that half of is super high-grade vs. a 400,000 ounce deposit that will likely never be mined.
Buy the way, I'm not down on my GNH investment 80% as my average cost is somewhere in the mid 30's as I stated before, so you are really becoming an annoying 24 year old child. Your understanding of drill results and structures is rather childish and humorous. Go back to school with your mathematical models and study some geology.
I had RVC, CUU, INT, INM, NES and several others and had one bad loser, GBB. If they weren't 2 years late releasing a 43-101 I might have had a bit better chance with that pick. What geological background do you have that has led you to believe GNH's deposit is actually profitable?
P.S. Please come bash at the Newstrike boards.. you will get chewed to pieces.