RE: RE: RE: jsnMooreman,
Maybe you're having a bad day. I never called you a dimwit, I called flubber a dimwit. After all of the crap he's pulled, there's no need to be respectful to him. You might want to work on your reading comprehension, though.
1) Hole looks good. Someone could get the coordinates of this hole and look up the past drill hole data to see if this was a twinned hole or if the other holes around it went deep and found comparable. Mike probably didn't drill this hole blind. Added tonnage and grade impossible to determine accurately at this point (IMO).
2) I think you may have confused my flubber refutation with the hole referenced in 1). The flubber refutation hole was drilled by Seabridge, Seafield, or whatever the company flubber referenced that was alleged to be a Glory Hole according to him.
3) See 2).
4) See 2).
5) Understood. See 1) for suggestion on researching past drill data. Again see #2, you're combining two concepts on two different holes that have nothing to do with one another, at least not suggested by me. I've never suggested Mike acted improper.
Was there anything wrong with my calculations of tonnage for RC that you could see? Any suggestions on how to improve the model so we can get a better idea of how big of a tiger Mike has by the tail? Do you want to tackle the average width and grade calculations? If Mike drilled on 25m centers the entire (strike?) length to 100 meters depth, could those holes all be included in the Measured category for 43-101 Resource calculations? If he went next to 200 meters depth, could he drill only on 50m centers to get that tonnage included, although maybe just Indicated? How about to 300 meters depth, etc., on to 500 meters? How do we get the most bang for the drilling buck?