RE:RE:Kakula West ALSO grades 4% Cu at 2% cutoffOf course we can include a conservative value for DD1138 and DD1144. Enough data was released that we can backcalculate a conservative estimate. If you didn't understand how to do that, you could have just asked nicely. I walk you through it a bit more simply below.
Step 1, determine which contour the boreholes lie in from the 2% composite grade thickness map. DD1138 is in >40% contour so I used 40%. DD1144 is in 30-40%, so I used 30%. Step 2: Determine the length of core attributed to the 2% grade cutoff from the published strip logs. Moderate to strong chalcocite mineralization correlates to higher copper grades so I used 8m for DD1138 and 11m for DD1144 as a reasonable estimate. Step 3, Divide grade/thickness by thickness to get grade copper grade.
I thought it was more rigorous and geology friendly to use all of the data from one resource area rather than take a weighted average of a whole news release covering mulitple resource areas.
Btw, you are correct that most of the drillhole assays for Kakula West show stronger copper mineralization. That is actually a GOOD thing! It either means Ivanhoe knows what and where to drill so they hit strong mineralization on each hole or the resource is so big they can't find the edge of it even when they are trying. However, there has been some contention that anything under 3% copper (i.e. weak mineralization) for an underground mine is marginal (your position I believe) so I characterized DD1179, DD1187, DD1149, and DD1189 as low grade in accordance with your guidelines. At any rate,I used ALL of the data for Kakula West and still came up with 4% weighted average..
For clarification, I am not a trader. I can't time the market for the life of me. I am in this for the long term so I don't mind the low share price as I can accumulate more. Copper demand may not increase the price of copper for a couple of years accoprding to you, but when it does, Ivanhoe will be in a great position. I don't even care if Ivanhoe only goes to $8 in two years. A double in two years is great for me. I don't know where else I can get that return. I'm much more worried about being out of ivanhoe when it takes off. However, if you know of better stocks with better long-term fundamentals than Ivanhoe, I'll take a look at them.
I'm not sure what you mean by dissembling in my post. I used the facts for some simple calculations and presented all of my assumptions for clarity. I believe it was pretty straighforward, even for those silly mega investors. Maybe you could point out an example of my dissembling to help us all out?
bloomfield18 wrote: Going Deeper,
You can't include DH 1138 and 44, because as far as I know, the data was never released. Awarding 5% for "moderate to strong mineralization" seems kind of arbitrary. Furthermore, most of the reported drillholes are from areas of stronger mineralization, not weak mineralization as you claim. Anyone can see this in Figure 3 of the latest news release. I don't know what you hope to achieve by dissembling. Do you really believe sophisticated traders who deal in millions of shares are going to be fooled by this kind of misleading information? You may win at Star Wars, but you won't win the Trading Wars.