RE:RE:2017 gold deposits - interestingNP,
As a general rule, I am not in favour of capping since that would eliminate the real data. If the results are properly weighted, the high grade (usually coupled with a short intercept, e.g. 1122 gpt and 0.7m for the PRB case) would not result in an over-estimate of the RE. Capping the high grade data point would certainly produce (although conservative) an under-estimate of the RE. So, for the modelling used in the RE the formulae would take care of the actual grade and intercept.
In your case, take the figure that has the comparison between AZX and PRB with the small blue and green circles, capping the grade would produce an artificial (for lacking of a better term) presentation.
Also I noted the following:
- The top PRB point is slightly above 800gpt-m. I did not check the data, but 1122gpt x 0.7m = 785 gpt-m, which is below 800.
- The second highest point for PRB was produced by taking the average results over the entire intercept. Hence the grade was low, 1.5gpt. But if you took the 3gpt grade and 57m the results would be above 75gpt-m, but we now talking high grade which could be more relevant for UG. I have not checked the actual location (from-to info). Similarly, you could choose 19.1 gpt for that hole (see PRB Corp Presentation for the Plan View and some drill info, slide 10), link below.
https://www.probemetals.com/site/assets/files/1191/2018-01-23_probe_metals_presentation_v2_2.pdf
- Location information: You presentation is fine from this point of view. However, the location information disappears as indicated above. Also, the location of the intercepts relative to the geographical features would disappear. Is there a way to bring in the location. Say, for each zone using PRB slide 10 as an example (Orenada Zone 4 could be more appropriate). Also some general indication if the data would be located in a shallow or deep zone. For Orenada, it's easier (almost all are shallow), but we may want to see some kind of lateral step-out indication. The main direction of the deposit for Orenada is E-W. It looks like the deposit (yellow) is confined between the volcanic rock (purple) and the granitic rocks (pink) and the width (N-S direction) is about 50-100m, so most likely in a OP operation, perhaps everything in this confined area, below the overburden, would be mined as ore.
As you noticed, I am infavour of something like CoreBox. Something that shows a 3D perspective for simple minded people, like myself. Something that you could just play with without reading the manual. With CoreBox you could play with the cut-off (just like capping). You can make the data appear (as clusters?) or disappear, but you can always get the data back.
As an aside, I used to work with visualization experts (I am no expert) and people were trying to teach me how to do technical stuff, but as very bad student with very short attention span, I have never learned or retained anything, lol. But whatever it is that the experts produced it has to be simple for lay people, people that has some money to invest, and bankers...
GH
----------------------
NextPhase wrote: Yes, I found this very interesting. I'm using several suggestions from this article to improve the accuracy of my analysis. The biggest change will be capping the high-grades within OAX-17-210, which drops the overall grade from over 2.0 g/t to 1.12 across 206.5m length, but I am going through everything again to be more confident on estimating the overall grade. I'm also working on some other details too from the original resource estimate from Orenada. I will post updates when available.
NP