RE:RE:RE:Visualizing Zone 2 Drill ResultsNP,
Thanks very much for your detailed responses. I will let this sink in a bit after dinner (BBQ chicken, and brandy!). One more quesion and one comment below.
- Question: So, the length of the grade band is obtained by subtracting the 2 number along the x-axis?, e.g. the blue band (0-05 gpt) for the Original RE has a total intercept of ~850 - 600 = 250m? If the cut off of 0.5gpt were chosen then we can just wipe out the (blue) tail end of the bottom bar? It would be informative to label the sub-total length of the intercept, so that readers don't need to dothe math.
- Comment: High grade is very important, according to ES, especially if it's more than double the cut-off of 4gpt (8.88gpt). Agree that 8 would be considered as high grade, but ES said in his Keynote at Jekyll Island that the cut-off would certainly provide a conservative picture, but ES as an investor would want to know also the high grades, especially the exceptional one, like in Fosterville, since the high grade would go straight to the profit margin (many times over mundane stuff like capacity increase of the mill which would require expenditure) while high grade does not cost any money to recover. His main point: he wants to know the real story (potential additional profit), not just some "conservative" package a CEO wants him to see (There was something happening in Fosterville, but ES said many times that the Fosterville CEO (before Newmarket was TO'd by KL) that gave him only the conservative story was nolonger there, lol). Is there any more things we can say about the red bands in the 2 bars (the top has about 60m in length while the bottom one has about ~2m length (by eye-balling)?
Another thing about ES is that he's not after a small percetage gain for his investment, it's the multi-bagger that he would go after. Hope that he applies the same principle in his AZX investment.
Cheers,
GH
---------------------------------
NextPhase wrote: GH,
I am lost (sorry for being so dense, at least this morning). I need more instruction for reading the chart.
No worries. I would assume this "new RE" means your "expected new RE based on the post 2009 RE data"?
Yes, I assumed the new RE will include all Zone 2 drill results released between 2015 and 2018.
thickness of the colour bars = length as measured along the x-axis, what lenth are we talking about, intercept length or some length measure from a reference point (zero)
The chart is labeled correctly. The length indicates the total length of intercepts only, while the color communicates the grade for that interecept. Length is simply the combined length of all reported intercepts in meters.
a length of 900m is long (measyred on the surface?)
No, 900m would be the total length of all intercepts if aggregated. I didn't acount for other factors, e.g. dip. You said in the text that "the data were sorted by grade x intercept (= gpt-m). How is this plotted in the 2 coulorful bars, e.g. how was the first (thick) red bar created (~60m thickness/length, compared to a very thin red line for the Original RE. That's why you concluded "similar grade improvement"?)
No, I meant the table below the chart was sorted by grade times length. This makes the table easier to see how the recent intercepts compare with the previously reported ones. The chart does not use this metric. Actually, the main question is what are you plotting, the grade? (or gpt x m, or gpt-m).Your legend shows the Au grade from 0-4 gpt (blue to red in the Legend bar).
The length of the bars is intercept length in meters, while color indicates grade. The chart is simply showing recent intercepts have been reporting higher grades. So, in the 2 large bars, red simply mean high grade with the cut-off at 4gpt?
The color legend is for grade only, 0-4 g/t. I used 0 and 4 for the color anchors with eight steps. This allows the user to see each color difference as a 0.5 g/t step. I could have included more, but academic research recommends limiting groups to 4-8. Every additional visual cue presented to an audience creates more mental effort and complexity, which may hinder visual communication. I saw a grade of 8.88gpt in the table, so presumably this was truncated to 4.00 gpt
Yes, I figured anything higher than 4 g/t is "high-grade", which I hoped would simplify the main message.
NP