RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: A joke You do not need GIS software to calculate the volume of possible pit sizes. I used a spreadsheet and calculated based on different angles at different depths. Without looking I believe I used something like 43 degrees for the first 50m, with roughly 1 degree increments per 50m afterward. It was all guesswork, though the math was right. For angle of 51 at the bottom I got something like 750 MT (based on the specific gravities, or tons per m3, in the resource report). That is around a 7 strip ratio, similar to what Longon said.
I drafted out the angles and such to match my calcs and, now that I think about how to describe the look, it seems like the typical picture of a uterus. The imagery of the Alaskite as a banana adds a certain funny twist.
As for other numbers he uses, well I've done the same with many price/cost scenarios simply because I enjoy punching numbers. I'm learning to input the drill locations, grades and depths into GIS as a teaching project for myself. I see no problem with his numbers or objective reports of the numbers, and he's not lying about any of that as some would accuse, as far as I can tell. The conclusions he preaches based on those numbers are the issue. He, and his fellow pumpers/bashers, preach like the Lone Pine bible is a closed book whereas the longs maintain the attitude of awaiting further light and knowledge.
One thing I do not understand is the avoidance of including the 50 mil lbs inferred resource into the speculative numbers. Huge assumptions for moly price, costs and strip ratio are made but what about the relatively secure assumption of the inferred resource?