Consistency would be a good thing. Can you help me understand the rational for using the furmula for a cuboid? Clearly the anomoly is not this shape. I would think that a cylinder would be better. If you use a cylinder in the calculation the cubic metres drops from 3.978 billion to 2.389 or 60%.

I have been using my own formula that includes a few different 3D geometric shapes that I feel best resembles the anomolies shape and size. My calculations equate to 2.234 billion or 56% of the cuboid.

I am curious because you are conservative on all other variables, yet we use the largest possible calculation for volume? If we are going to post numbers for new investors and state that they are "conservative" should we not use a conservative calculation for the volume?

I am still getting incredible numbers. My SP actually works out higher than yours as I am not as conservative on a few variables, like g/t and the price in the ground.