@Nodferatu
Actually if you read the announcement carefully the company was reporting
mean assay results on only 3 bulk composite samples for those diamond core holes. Look at the way they report the drill data in Table 1. They've only got two assays that contribute to the mean for the 55.25m composite sample they collected for JED 001. They have performed repeated assays on the same composite sample and averaged the results. This is very different to assaying at regularly spaced intervals along those intersection and taking the average of those assays.
One composite sample from JED 001 comprising 55.25m between 66.45m-121.7m.
One composite sample from JED 004 comprising 13.6m between 211.30m-224.96m.
One composite sample from JED 006 comprising 49.4m between 250m-299.44m.
IMO you would not be able to include these results into a JORC resource estimate as the distribution of the metal grades along these drill intervals is still unknown.
These intersections occur mostly at what would be considered underground mining depths and as discussed in a previous post you would need to know how the gold is distributed to define ore boundaries for ore block models. Without proper boundaries it is impossible to know which parts of these intersections would represent waste rock and which parts would represent ore. Say all the gold was actually contained in only 30% of each interval and you used these intervals as boundaries for mining you would be taking 70% of waste rock as ore.
Now given the unusual situation that occurred with this company and the new methods they needed to discover to be able to assay the samples, reporting these holes in this way is probably fair enough, considering the circumstances. But if they do the same for the up coming RC drilling and work with composite samples over long lengths or the entire hole, the same situation will prevail. They won't be able to use the results in resource estimates as the metal distribution down the hole will not be know to a sufficiently resolved scale.
There is no reason that I can see if they have a valid assay technique, apart from the expense, that they cant sample and assay the up coming RC drilling on conventional intervals (3m or 4metres down hole with 1m follow-ups in high grade zones).
One consequence of what I've said above is that the company has spent a lot of money on diamond drilling and developing assay techniques but based on these results they won't be able to use them in a JORC resource estimate IMO which means a lot of money seems to have been expended for no real gain. They would have to have remaining core sample leftover from this drilling to re-assay on smaller intervals to be able to take advantage of the work they have done in a resource model or drill new holes and assay over appropriate intervals. I've got a feeling that no core remains for some of these holes as they've done several rounds of assays on them already.
Hopefully this time around they provide down hole assays over standard drill intervals.
Eshmun
