Not so SharpieThank god we have you here to dispel myths that 43-101's aren't based only on metres drilled.. I was just plugging in my numbers for ATAC's coming 43-101 and I figured since they have 1/3 the metres drilled of Volta.. and Volta has 5 million ounces.. we can divide by 3 and assume that ATAC should come up with about 1.8 Moz in all categories...
..obvious sarcasm for those confused
You do absolutely no DD and that can be proven by your post on Orex boards tonight:
"Osisko only interested in deposits greater than> 5 million ounces. Orex is a distraction from the Hammond Reefproject and their Quebec properties. Termination should be comingshortly."
- Can you explain Threegold's Adanac property that has 0 million ounces and no economic mineralization to date that OSK just joint ventured as well as acquiring 9% stake of THG? How about Dios Explorations joint venture as of July 8th ?
As shown by your post history all you do is bash companies and tout your holy OSK so I'm interesting if you're so good at critiquing - what investments would you suggest at this point that offer better upside with the lack of downside risk, besides GBB?
If you did DD on your own companies projects (Hammond Reef) you might have looked at their drill map, compared it with GBB and seen some potential here. I know you didn't judging by your July 17 post that there's no investment here and you're not interested yet you've frequented the board daily since..
My point about us having more metres drilled than Brett when they released their 6.7 Moz 43-101 is that we have much more knowledge about our property prior to 43-101 release than Brett did. GBB has close to 900 holes (historical and company drilled) and over 100,000 metres of assays to base this 43-101 on. While Brett does have about 30% better grades, both deposits have similar structures BUT with our 30% more holes we have better infill spacing.
This would make an immense difference in the valuation of our ounces due to a possibility that some ounces may fall in better than Inferred categories.
Now let's compare the deposits:
https://www.brettresources.com/i/pdf/March_1_2010_Brett.pdf
- On page 11 you'll find their drill map and the Resource it was based on.
Their structure stretches close to 2.2 km and has a width of roughly 450 metres.
What's important to notice though is that roughly 1100 metres of this Resource has less than 20 holes plugged in it.
If you look at the areas of concentrated drilling that actually contributed to the Resource (area where 80% of holes drilled) you will see that it's separated into two different deposits.
To make it simple we'll call them Block A and Block B.
Block A has dimensions of 760 metre strike by 460 metre width and Block B has dimensions of 575 metre strike by 400 metres.
If we add both together we get a deposit that is roughly 1.33 km in strike length and 430 metres in width.
If you take away the green holes on the Hammond Reef drill map (they are proposed drill holes) you will see that the spacing in between holes is much larger than that of GBB - to scale or not. I would compare Brett's spacing across Block A and B to our spacing in our Eastern and North Eastern Extension currently. Whether GBB and Brett's map are both the same scale or not you can look at the strike and see that about 12 holes planted in each row on Block A make up a whole 760 metre strike or over 50 metre spacing between holes on average.
When it comes to Block B at Brett's Hammond Reef in terms of subtracting proposed holes that skew the drill map, there are even larger spacing between holes which is why we can assume Brett was never able to upgrade resources over their 2 43-101's to M & I, because like us they were busy drilling for STRUCTURE.
So 6.7 Moz at 0.8 g/t au is found over a
1.33 km strike length and
430 metre width with up to
300 metre depths at Hammond Reef.
So far Granada has a
1.2 km strike length,
500 metre widths and up to 300 metre depths with an average of closer to 200 metre depth currently.
1200 X 500 X 175 dimensions yield this result:
262.5 MT @ 0.55 g/t au = 4.64 Moz of gold
I believe 0.55 is a very conservative estimate for grades as we're completely ignoring the surface bulk sample results (1.67 g/t au) and I believe the grade will come in closer to 0.6 g/t au or another 375,000 + ounces.