OTCQX:BGMZF - Post by User
Comment by
ovison Aug 17, 2012 10:32am
262 Views
Post# 20228846
RE: Timeframe for amending an NI43_101 Report
RE: Timeframe for amending an NI43_101 Report >>>Furthermore I found this: "The cause for the amendment by Rubicon is due to the fact that RBY used a polygonal assessment when the industry prefers a block model approach.."<<<
Flintstone,
Your assessment of the Rubicon issues failed to mention the issue of an upper cut. The application of a top cut was a bigger factor. Model changes took the resource estiamte from 4M to 3.6M oz while the application of a top cut took the resource down to 3.0M oz. When AMC redid work the estimate 4 months later, using additional drill results, they found 2.7M oz of Indicated + Inferred.
On the top cut, what is i interesting is that the bulk sample Rubicon completed later failed to show any nugget effect so the insistence of a top cut was apparently justified. A bulk sample is always better than drill cores and of course mill head grade is better than a bulk sample.