RE: why no reponse to Zorro11??Zorro11 is twisting the facts, motive?, basher? Shorting?
Play on words Zorro.
Read:total width of 4.8m consisting of six individual split core samples, two of which contained visible gold, each of these 6 samples assayed 3 times, 2 fire-assay, 1 metallic screen.
From the NR;
the fourth hole (NOT-06-100) encountered three significant zones of gold mineralization, the best of which covered a total width of 4.8 metres (15.7 feet) consisting of six individual split core samples, two of which contained visible gold. Each of these latter six samples were assayed twice (using two split/separate pulps of the same sample) with the normal fire assay method and a third time (a third split/separate pulp of the same sample) with a metallic screen test.
The assayed, weighted average of the three assay tests for the six individual samples over the 4.8 metres (15.7 feet) were:
• 1,792.9 grams per tonne (52.3 ounces per ton);
• 800.1 grams per tonne (23.33 ounces per ton) from the fire assays; and
• 1,327.9 grams per tonne (38.74 ounces per ton) for the metallic screening assay.
For those interested parties who wish to know more about the methodology used in the assaying process, you may contact Bourlamaque Labs of Val d'Or, Que.
Posted by Zorro11
Heads up,
The 4.8m of split core was separated into "six individual split core samples, two of which contained visible gold".
In other words only 2 x 4.8m/6 = 1.6m contained visible gold.
Furthermore, the actual gold present within this 1.6m is only 15.94 grams, the equivalent of a lump of gold slightly larger than 1 cm cubed (1.04 cubic cm).
4.8m of split NQ core weighs: (4.8m) x (2.5kg/m) = 12kg
Using simple algebra we can solve for the unknown weight of gold in the core. Using the metallics test results (fire assay results are invalid for coarse gold) of 1,327.9 g/t we have:
(1.3279kg/tonne) x (1 tonne/1000kg) = 0.00133
(0.00133) x (12kg) = 0.01596kg = 15.96 grams gold.
Although 1792.9 g/tonne gold across 4.8m sounds exciting, what we are really looking at is an anomalous concentration over a relatively short intersection.
Prediction: This is a 'glory hole' that will not be substantiated by further drilling.
Z (Professional Geologist)
Grodin,
The weighted average they refer to in the news release is for the 6 individual samples in each assay, not a weighted average of the combined assays. Fire assays don't work well for coarse gold. One fire assay came in at 1792.9 g/t, and the other at 800.1 g/t. Naturally, the company chose to highlight the 1792.9 g/t value!
Fire assays are not recommended for coarse gold, while the 'metallics' test is widely recognized as the proper procedure. Therefore, in my calculations, I ignored the fire assays, and just used the metallics assay of 1,327.9 g/tonne.
Here is some documentation from the ALS Chemex website.
https://www.alschemex.com/learnmore/learnmore-techinfo-preciousmetals-gold.htm#Limitations%20of%20the%20Fire%20Assay%20Process
"Samples containing coarse gold can give erratic results making it difficult to determine the true ore grade; however, sample heterogeneity rather than the fire assay process causes this problem."
The recommended technique for use with coarse gold is the 'metallics' or screened fire assay technique.
https://www.alschemex.com/downloads/newsletters/course%20gold%20problems.pdf
"However, coarse gold grains, due to their high malleability, are not reduced in size by grinding. Prolonged milling will roll these grains into spherical or ‘cigar’ shapes, but will not significantly reduce their size. For samples known to contain coarse gold particles we recommend the screened fire assay sample preparation procedure."
In any case, Mr. Grodin, the main issue here is not one of assay technique. Drill results were released in such a way as to conceal the fact that a very high concentration of gold was intersected over just a short interval of less than 1.6m, perhaps only 2 to 3 feet.
-Z-