Barkerville Gold Mns Ltd BGMZF

RE:RE:Feb 12 P/R Comparison

[yaponski]

waitingstill wrote:

Goldexie - thank you for the work. Quite a bit of effort for someone with nothing invested. Appreciated. Seems like the FA and MS are reasonably close (within 15%). So tell me this, in your opinion, is there any possibility that the new assays for the whole core as described could improve the quality control thereby allowing movement of inferred to indicated?

If so, it is possible that a 1mil ind and 4mil inferred could go to 4.4mil indicated? (1mil indicated already plus 4mil inferred x .85 = 3.4mil moved to indicated) Or some combination inbetween?
 

waitingstill,
The more pressing question IMO is whether or not the variance between original and updated results are with expected statistical variances. If not then the BCSC would be within their role to request further expanations on the variance. I definitely do NOT have the experience to say whether or not the variance is within expected toloerance but I expect GoldEx has enough experience to venture an estimate.

Given BGM's history, I would expect that BCSC spreadsheets are or will crunch the numbers. No comments from the BCSC so it probably is within expected ranges.

In terms of whether or not Inferred can be moved to Indicated with those results, I would have to say while it is possible in theory if the revised results filled continuity holes in the model, I would also say that it is extremely likely that fewer gram-meters means less confidence and likely a decrease in the Inferred results. Since we are talking about a small number of holes, I doubt the results to date change anything but if the trend was true for the rest of the holes then the 4M Oz of Inferred drops to 3.x Oz Inferred.  

That is if the samples are random, then how can you hope to get more (i.e. Indicated)  from less (fewer gram-meters data points)?  If you did see more from less then I expect the BCSC would raise an eye brow or two and have a closer look. Just saying....