Post by
Wangotango67 on Dec 04, 2023 6:13pm
LET'S PLAY ENGINEER
Yuo own an Engineering firm.
You're specialty is mineral deposit assesments and reports.
Your contacted to perform a report.
The junior has already taken the libery to initiate on own,
- wire frame block models
- group 4 minerals ( duntite, perio, pyrox, clinopyrox ) under 1 title
- deduct 0.10% Ni from dunite.
Engineering firm has all files from junior in hand
including MET tests.
Engineering firm scans 2012, 2014 intel for comparison
Engineering firm asks junior what's your preferred cut off
Assumed cut off, 0.20%
Engineering firm sets the parameters for the block model
keying in, drill intercepts, minerals, grades, cut offs.
Engineering firm rereads the part about grouping
4 mineral groups into one main group.
applies 0.10% deduction.
Boom.
All 4 geologies recieve 0.10% deduction.
Suppose 0.20% was the least percent before mine operation
shut down.
Investor told ( 0.26% Ni grade )
Which differs from 2012 fusion assay report.
0.26%
- 0.10%
= 0.16%
Anything under 20% cutoff is not calculated.
Page 27
1.7.2 Geological Models
Lithologic wireframe models were created by Wellgreen Platinum geologic staff
For the resource modeling, the dunite, peridotite, pyroxenite and clinopyroxenite
were treated as a single domain for geostatistics with the gabbro/massive
sulphide material confined to a separate domain.
The dunite material
had 0.1% nickel deducted from the grade
as an estimate of potential nickel silicate content
which eliminated nearly all of this material from the resource estimate
Did they think of all the Plats in silicates ?
Hello.
Could it be,
Engineering firm applied 0.10% deduction to,
all 4 mineral groups because all 4 groups were grouped into,
= one parent group.
Suppose.., a 20% cutoff is applied,
would make sense why millions of tonnes are
missing in 2015 report vs 2014.
Let's pull forward the 2014 vs 2015 resources
Mega Millions of Tonnage Lost in all categories
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53294034400_a645049e8f_c.jpg
Quality ores,
turn to waste ores in block models.
Not to mention,
deep drill intercepts that maybe omitted from,
resource calcs.
Computer ( fixed programs ) for block modelling
would certainly respond accordingly if parameters were keyed in as,
Key in all 4 minerals = treat as same = one group
dunite, perio, pyrox, clinopyrox
Minus 0.10% fieldsapplied to dunite,
dunite is apart of one parent group consiting of,
dunite, perio, pyrox, clinopyrox
Result
all four mineral groups recieve,0.10% deduction
Computer block modelling parameter fields set @ 0.20% cut off
What was engineers comment ?
eliminated nearly all of this material from the resource estimate
Open thoughts....
Anyone else...?