RE:RE:Sorry folks. I sold my novoI definitely understand the frustration.... 4 hard numbers in 6? Months. This is definitely a weird animal, but it makes it worse knowing that they could learn the answer +\- 20% by taking readily available samples, hitting it with a detector, and assay the rocks with nuggets and then divide by total rock mass cut out. So easy if you give up on being within 5% and give up on the officially insignificant fines. Are we at .01 or 0.5 opt???
How thick is the rich seam? Again, readily assessable with detectors and simple logic, yet we don’t have a clear answer. One of the things that convinced me this was real was the trench photos with a meter or two of apparent thickness showing detector hits (hoakey I know).
Oh, and QHs comment about horizontal sample size being more important than vertical size was also disturbing?!?!? How is grade x thickness not the #1 priority. Samples need vertical depth control for statistical significance. Size at thickness. Not vice versa.
Still holding because this still just too compelling, but the delays on answers are crazy. End of drunk rant.