How can an interpretation move a target from 420m to 260m?? and an uppermost basal contact be modelled too?!
Which raises another question for me, given your analysis is correct: the changed depth is such a major difference, how did they miss this half depth basal contact in the first place? Or were there conflicting interpretations amongst the experts, requiring a Top Gun to sort it out?
Is the Kambalda model still valid, I wonder, or have we the struck a different geological structure, in the same way Sirius found an unexpected structure at Nova.
Dare I wonder?
Ann: Annual Report to shareholders, page-44
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 17 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
