RE:RE:RE:Stockpile contains Gold - and higher than 0.5 Au g/tAs I have said, you make whatever assumptions you want.
If you are going to post numbers, you could at least justify them with actual math, clearly detailed assumptions , and .... Detailed calculations - perhaps even with a table????
You want "a properly calculated number", and yet in the 2 years you have been posting here on PHD, you haven't posted a detailed post of calculations even once.
Yes, I have included the outliers - I believe I was very very very clear to all in that assumption and detail - I actually post my assumptions - when I do make them.
And my assumption...is that this is "mill waste", is not a random property sample, and that in itself brings into question if indeed any outliers should be excluded. so that is my assumption.
I'm sorry you don't like it. frankly I don't care..
I have now saved these posts, so that I can repost for people to use as a starting place for their DD .... And that is what they are - a starting place. and I have provided enough math that they can adjust for their own assumptions and recrank to their hearts content.
I am not the one misrepresenting,,..you are
You fail to post assumptions
You fail to post accurate math
You fail to post detail of any kind that can be verified or modified based on an individuals own assumptions....your assumptions, are garbage
KozmoT wrote: You still misrepresent the numbers. That one single sample of 253 g/t was a glaring nugget effect sample but you refuse to acknowledge that it contained more gold than, literally, 107 of the 109 samples COMBINED!!! and yet you included it in your calculation as being representative of the rest of the waste pile same as all the other samples.
You refuse to provide people here with a properly calculated number with the nugget effect samples omitted or capped as they should be ... gosh I wonder why, maybe because the overall grade would instantly drop to well under 1 g/t ?!?!?!?!