RE:RE: @geo3987 Leapfrog (3D) ceonozzpack wrote: Much of the information that you provide is explicitly stated in the 2024 TR.
For example , the distance between Keats and Iceberg mineralized zones.
I have used extensively comparative mining and grade estimates based on the Valentine Lake FS.
That deposit is close to QWN, is orogenic and open pit based with an average open pit depth in the range of 225 meters .
Within the economically defined open pits, all mining phases included, a total of 609 milion tons will be mined including waste ore.
M+I+IF gold resources at a 0.3 gram cutoff is 5 million ounces at an average grade of 1.86 grams per ton.
I define the raw grade of that resource as above the 0.3 gram cutoff.
Its Raw grade is 0.25 grams per ton of ore within the defined economic pits .
From the 2024 QWN TR , top 10 prospects combined, with no cutoff grade...trully Raw grades ....with the same sampling rate as VL....about 95% of meters drilled..the average Raw grade is 0.44 grades
per ton.
As the sampling rate...meters drilled..is about the same for these areas, the ratio of raw grades is about 1.8 times in favor of the 10 QWN prospects.
Prorata, this rates QWN 10 as containing about 9 million ounces..( 5**1.8 ) .
However, it can be cogently argued that the Raw grade of VL is high biassed due to (1 ) a cut off of 0,3 grams per ton versus no cutoff for QWN and ( 2) drilled grades within three defined economic pits would include a high proportion of closely spaced grade control holes , hence fewer blank holes , which would elevate the average within pit grades of VL relative to largely exploration drilling for QWN.
This is bare essentials comparisons, with known direction of the probable biasses, and still you arrive at 9 million ounces for just a portion of QWN.
Adjusting for these signifucant biasses, and arriving at 15 + million resource ounces for the shallow 10 prospects of QWN would be quite reasonable .
FWIW
AIMHO
GLTA
I think this maybe your most real post yet good job on this one