RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:NR - Bulk Sample Drill Program Concludes With Additional Higtouareg wrote: edx.. You say: ""But that appears to be the crux of the Strathcona and Snowden disagreement and the Snowden methodology seems like it is guaranteed to over-estimate the mineable resource (by assuming every ounce is mineable for an underground mine, as is being done for the bulk sample) whereas the Strathcona methodology does not have that inherent bias built into its methodology.""
Correct me if I am wrong but is not the Bulk Sample the same thing as Mining?.. Is this not the same thing as trial mining? Putting the complication of Cliopatra to one side for a moment if the bulk sample turns out to be reasonably accurate according to Snowdons FS why would the mining of the bulk sample be any different from real thing? I don't think anyone is saying "every ounce is minable" as you put it.. They know where the high grade is.. they know where the low grade is.. they have drilled it like a Swiss cheese.. that would suggest to me they know which rock to pull out and which rock to leave..
As I see it that the real deal breaker is how the high grade areas of the BS turn out.. if they match or better the FS then we're in business..
Sort of. They are including (if I"m not mistaken) below cut off grade rock, which wouldn't be milled in a commercial mining operation (it's a money losing proposition). And it's obvious that some of the bonanza grade but super narrow veins will either turn out to be nuggets or the confidence in that vein's viability due to its narrow width will be low enough that it won't be worth driving hundreds of meters worth of access tunnel and declines to reach it.
But my comment was more to explain Strathcona's extreme rejection of the Snowden methodology which could (and probably did) ultimately lead to their resignation. Why they chose to do so has been pondered endlessly for days on this forum. I think we have our answer.