It is difficult to measure the (reasonably) exact size of the anomaly as we only have a plan (surface) view and an elevation (side) view. There is only a single oblique view from the original Titan 24 survey. The volume used here is probably correct, as SLI reported the anomaly is like a bowl. When I tried to make a scale model of the anomaly some months ago, the top length is quite shallow and the silly putty I had to fit into the two dimensions given from the pictures had to be quite a bit steeper than a shallow bowl. Trying to make the volume smaller didn't seem reasonable according to the usual things nature provides, so the end result was more like the X-section of an aircraft carrier, i.e closer to a rectangle than an ellipsoid. On the other hand, the volume of an ellipsoid is the same whether it is long and thin or short and fat.

At any rate I don't want to belabor the point as this is all old stuff and the point of the post is that I wouldn't be surprised if the tonnage came out to be quite a bit bigger; if so, this would more than take care of any small errors in size that were reported in the recent "Mining Stock Report" that I found to be a very good resume for anyone new.

Also you all know that with this huge anomaly, any doubling of the gold concentration, for example 2 gms/ton to 4 gms makes a huge difference in the total value, so any small differences in volume aren't as significant; a 20% volume difference could be very significant, thus I am of the opinion that the volume given by BOW2U is conservative. This is another reason why I would like to see the full Titan 24 report.