OK sorry I thought the result of your trig calculation was...

OK sorry I thought the result of your trig calculation was saying it was 0.5m wide. I think you and I are on different tangents. I just did a rough calculation of the tonnage without reference to any trigonometry and I used a modest 16m for the semi-minor axis of the ellipsoid to compensate for using a generous 8m "true width".

For your sake I'll try and do it better although the exercise was never to try and calculate some sort of economic ore block.

I've just read the caption below figure 3 in the announcement carefully and noticed

"Break of Day schematic long section of the combined Twilight and Velvet gold lodes with new drill hole locations and the projected outline of the Lena deposit which is located approximately 130m west of Break of Day together with new drill target (a long section or longitudinal section is a section along the plane of the lode and in this instance shows gold grade x thickness variability with depth of the combined Lodes)"

This is not a true long section as it combines the results of the two quasi parallel lodes into one plane which is geometrically impossible as a plane is described in two dimensions not three. Technically even for the single twilight lode a true long section would be very unrevealing as the number of actual pierce points that would intersect a plane for a lode which snakes when viewed from a horizontal plane would be very small. Most companies fudge these long sections by projecting pierce points that are "off plane" but "near plane" on a "continuous" ore body, back onto the plane.

In this case MGV have done an extra layer of fudging by projecting both the Twilight lode and the Velvet lode onto the same plane.

So back in the context of the blue plunge line I drew on Fig3 (and remembering what I said above) we can assume the angle of plunge of my blue line is true in respect of a horizontal plane but we don't know if both those historic intersections I used to calculate my ellipsoid lie on the same lode. They could both be on one lode or one each on either lode. Without knowing if both are on the twilight lode it makes my previous calculation a bit redundant as its impossible to calculated a proper tonnage if either of the two older holes are actually on the Velvet lode.

Below is my calculation of the true width based on Fig2 which I calculate to be 6.8 metres. I measured the angle between the ore and the drill hole with a protractor and that angle will be pretty close to accurate if you accept that the two intersections above in holes 82 and 83 from part of the same dipping ore body. If you don't accept that then I can't help any further. I'm a little disappointed to discover, on closer inspection, the ambiguity that has been created in that long section by combining all the domains, so I thank you for drawing my attention to look in more detail at the announcement.

You've got to be careful with all these companies as they'll always try and present information in the best light. Esh