RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Gosh, it sure got Radar,
I know you were talking to Urbani, but let me chime in with my two cents.
I understand what you are saying and I'm certainly not going to try and say the trenching results were barn burners. They weren't, but they also weren't devoid of gold either.
Anyone who has been around this gold sector for more than 5 minutes knows that there lots of dynamics that go into analyzing recoverable economic gold and it is different for each type of rock and earth structure.
Sure we all would like to have seen blistering eye popping grades in the initial trenching work but in the real world that's not really how it works. The drill, not trenching, is the thing that holds the key to EQT being successful longer term.
There are many lower grade producing mines spread all over the world making millions of dollars per year producing gold at grades below even 2 gpt. Most high grade exploration targets get a lot of hype but rarely turn out to be as good as the hype generated in the market place.
All in all, I'm not saying that you don't have good points and that much more work will need to be done, of course much more needs to be done. But in a super low cost environment like Brazil with easy access to everything needed to pull the ore out of the ground should make this land package a rather straight forward concept to mine and process.
Even at lower grades.
What I need to see over the coming days, weeks, and months is the over-all 43-101 verifiable quantity of the gold resource enlarged and moved to the P & P and ultimately to the reserve category and I want to see just how large they can expand this area and exploit additional blue sky discoveries for further development. They also need to be aggressive with the gravity feed infrastructure and ultimately the CIL plant. This needs to get moving pronto.
I always expected this to be a lower grade structure. That's OK if all of the other pertinent factors are in-place to make it profitable with a long life production profile.
radar17 wrote: At first glance Mark they were "not bad". Then after reading up the Bogner report that filled in a few more blanks - and realizing there were only 24 samples pending, I realized it fell well and truly into the "sucked" category.
Out of a total of 1,680 m of trenching in 9 trenches across the most prospective zones of an area they already knew hosted gold, the assays showed only a grand total of 36 meters, spread over 8 separate intervals that returned any mineralization above 1 gm/tonne, and half were a mere 2 meters or less in width!!
Wouldn't you agree ... that's most definitely NOT good?
Thanks for asking though.