RE:Assay ? for GoldExHello BXJU,
I looked at that photo the first time the presentation came out. And in general, yes you are seeing what would be called the nuggety effect. Often, this nuggety issue causes assays issues on all kinds of scales. I still have only looked at the hole I provided data on (CM11-102?) and I see possible other issues with the first assay done in 2011. These comments are just general, and I am not saying it is what happened, but when you have these pieces of VG in the core, it can also cause issues like this:
When they crush the core, it isn’t uncommon for the VG to smear throughout the crusher during sample prep. So every time you put the next sample in, you get contamination to your next sample. An effort is made to clean the prep machine between each crush, but most labs will charge extra if you want a very thorough cleaning. For instance, you can run a load of sand or other non-contaminated material through. When you have coarse gold, all kinds of issues arise. This starts with the drilling, as the core sleeve slides over the VG, it can smear that gold too. This is why detailed logging can help figure out what may be happening. Obviously when you have a nugget in only one half the core submitted or kept can go either way. You can have either an overly optimistic or under optimistic result.
I am still of the belief, that if BGM does all these metallic screens that the number will for the most part get real close to that of the FA. I do expect some standouts! Look at the hole I provided a comparison on… That whole long intercept of over 200 feet @ 14 Grams went to complete hell and only had mineralization of 28 feet using Metallic screen.
With regards to the difference in the estimates, I have provided some historical analysis of the bench that had so much of the gold in it in PG’s report. IT IS ONLY MY OPINION, AND NOTHING MORE THAN JUST ME LOOKING AT THE DATA provided, but in no way was it possible using the data provided to come up with the ounces reported in that bench.
Many here also get excited about the uncapped results for the modeling, and the uncapped is something every company looks at from an inside standpoint, but you have to be an expert (Professional Geologist trained in Modeling) to really understand what it means. Some time ago, you provided a link that had discussion about the issue with 43-101 and it had a P. Geo provide some commentary. In my mind, he was spot on in so many ways. He also provided some commentary as to why you cap and how. None of it very technical & I strongly recommend a re-read…. I may too. If you do, please repost the link.
I have been following the whole PVG issue, and think it is turning out to be a fantastic story. One thing that differentiates the Snowden PVG resource and the BGM Resource is the amount of drilling, and also the average grade. It is much easier to apply the technique used for PVG when you have that density drilling in such a small area.