RE:RE Another non news ...news releaseJust had a chance to go through the NR (from NOVO website). Thought that the NR is quite informative and has quite a bit of useful information.
- Starting with the YouTube link to have a bearing of where this bulk sample (KX157) was taken. It's in the Powerline Prospect (yup, you can see the powwerline tower in there. Also Purdy Rewards is at the other end (seems like a continuation of the strike from there).
- There are 5 pictures at the end (including the pictures of the nuggets: the first is good for measuement of the face/area of the nuggets; the second is an oblique shot whic is good for an estimate of the thickness of the nuggets, especially the large ones). So, download them all to have a complete set for reference. They contain useful information for a rough estimate of the weight of those 80 nuggets.
May be someone could contact NOVO and ask them directly for the weight? I don't see any reason why they would not give out that info, unless they want to keep that sort of "confidential" info from the competitors or for site security reasons (fossikers may be all over the spot).
Rough estimate:
- the largest one seems to be nugget # 5 on the top row: Dimension: 2.16 x 1.5 x 0.5 cm using the grid and eyeballing the thickness (oblique picture). Volume of this nuggest: 1.6cm3.... x 19.32 (Au sg) = 31.3 g (~1oz). Any fatal math error so far?
- Pick 4 largest nuggets: #1 on 1st row, #5 on first row, #6 on 5th row, and #1 on 6th. It looks like those 4 nuggets would be equivalent (my guess) to about 3 x the largest nugget (# 5 on first row) 3 x 31.3 g = ~100 g
- The rest of the nuggets (80-4 = 76 nuggets) would contribute another 100g (again my guess). If I had the time, these could be "rounded up" digitally and integrated to get the total surface area. There is software to do this kind of stuff (and assume some kind of thickness to work out the volume, then weight). So, a guess of an additional 100 g by eyeballing is probably not that bad for the balance of smaller nuggets.
This shows that ~200 g total for this 7.143 tonne sample would yield an average grade of 200g/7.143 tonnes = 28 gpt, which is in the same order of magnitude other posters have indicated (over 15gpt).
Just some estimate folks.
GH
----------------------------
firewitch wrote: Icarus Allenbow . Here we go again .I cant see anything negative in the content of this NR. on the information given by QH . On the contrary I see it as all good....ok we dont have a g/t estimate BUT we have CONTINUITY. An essential part of this story . This sample taken from KX157 must be taken in context for what it is in relation to sample PRBS1 at PR.which gave us the87.8 and47.1g/t immediately above the basal contact. As I understand it the KX157 sample comprises 50 cm interval starting 30 cm above basal contact . I expect when the area immediately above the basal contact at CW is tested it gonna be special . Purdys Trench 1 assay was only 30cm interval up to 1 m above the bedrock immediately above the contact bedrock level. Thats where the majority of the gold was...if my memory serves me correct...can somebody confirm that .? Horseman...? CW is surely going to be better .... Wait for the results which include the 30 cm above the dolerite .I believe this is just the start of a fantastic journey . BTW great to see Rhino back ,although predominately on ceo.ca . I understand your frustration re the mining issue . Im sure Novo will get there eventually QH knows they must bulk mine trial mine to get any kind of realistic resource estimate . I cant comment on SGS in Perth ....got no idea whats going on there .