RE: Permagrin IImooreman,
I was just going back over this post of your's. Following your reasoning, are you saying that there's potential for this to be far greater than 15-20 million tonnes? Are you implying 70-90 million tonnes is possible following your max. thickness and tonnage relations to the current Nash deposit?
"Let's be conservative and for comparison's sake say that the existing 9 MT deposit generally is 30 m in thickness. Our intersection yesterday was 10 times that thickness, the thickness that exists in the 9 million tonne deposit. So if the deep zone extends to the same general dimensions as the Nash deposit (strike and width), but the thickness is approximately 10 times the thickness of Nash, then the potential tonnage of this lower zone is nothing shy of immense! People have been saying 15 million tonnes, 20 million tonnes... As I said, should the dimensions remain consistent, the size of this lower zone will easily exceed those estimates, possibly several fold. Having said that, this is the "discovery hole" and there will be more drilling to delineate this zone, though I'm not sure how much of that SLAM will be responsible for."