NI 43 101Well I guess we will have to wait until Pretium builds the mine to see how well Snowden’s model actually holds up. Section 1.4.2 kind of took my breath away since Snowden/Tetra Tech tells us:
- Not to rely on the sample tower results. Fair enough, I think they won this argument;
- Not to rely on the underground drilling since it was oriented wrong;
- Not to rely on the channel sampling, although it confirmed the underground drilling (“there is no bias evident between the channel samples and the drilling…”);
- Not to rely on the bulk sampling since each sample was only 100 tonnes in a 2,700 tonne block of the model. (It makes one wonder if they mined a whole block, how the numbers would hold up and what excuse they would use for any variance.)
- Just rely on our block model with a few tweaks.
So what precisely was the point of the bulk sample program if all the data collected has been discounted from the resource model? Did they just hit one sweet spot in the bulk sample program and come up with reasons to discount the results from all the remainder?
I feel sorry for the future underground mine geologists since the tools they need to determine where the ore is for mining have been effectively discounted as not valid by Snowden. How do they determine stope boundaries?
Anyways, best of luck here guys. I am neither long nor short and have no intention of either in the future. I am uncomfortable though that an open pit block modelling technique has been used to determine underground reserves.