Re: New 43-101 explanation??-Curt22... Obfuscation vs Sandbagging
in response to
by
posted on
Mar 22, 2010 06:44PM
NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)
I am sympathetic with your pursuit of the unfettered truth/meaning of that early March 43-101. Please recall my Mar.9 post question repeated below:
"Note: The resource at a 3% cutoff stated above represents a
tabulation of blocks above a 3% nickel grade."
I was always under the impression that "anything over 1.8-2% Ni was good (hence included in the reource estimate).
I wonder what the tonnage would be if a 2% cutoff was used. Anybody profficient with NUMA yet??
Thanks in advance to the smart people." "
Obfuscation is the concealment of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret. Obfuscation may be used for many purpose...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obfuscation
I'm inclined to think that the obfustication of the 43-101 data has resulted in the intended sandbagging (aka lowballing) of the true resourse size until :
A) blockade was over; B) keep sp down (and predators away) while awaiting end of blockade; and C) results of the >than 1150m+ deeper drilling at the "Nest".
Not a bad plan, actually. Peter
Peter
"Note: The resource at a 3% cutoff stated above represents a
tabulation of blocks above a 3% nickel grade."
I was always under the impression that "anything over 1.8-2% Ni was good (hence included in the reource estimate).
I wonder what the tonnage would be if a 2% cutoff was used. Anybody profficient with NUMA yet??
Thanks in advance to the smart people.
Peter