No I didn’t know I was painting a deliberately skewed statistic...

No I didn’t know I was painting a deliberately skewed statistic Eshmun.

To me the report reads they were getting less than one gram out of every ton of ore processed and weather and equipment issues delayed things even more as well as Cube and Ashmore Advisory being underfoot drilling all over the place.
And they discovered Golden Wings has none which is a great disappointment given they were chewing away at that pit collecting the pointless ore to feed the inadequate mill.
But the good news is Cube and Ashmore said Gilbeys is likely to have only around 4% less gold than expected .
And I figure; how can the results next time NOT be significantly better as long as they have no weather events , equipment events, a clear field to work in and they stop taking ore from Golden Wings?


But as I read your comments you say the reassessment did not go as deep as the original study ie 65 or 70 metres below ground level.
..And that the results only show about a fifth of the resource so no one knows what the other 80% is like
....And that the figures from the drilling results show grades are much worse than -4.1% at measured, indicated and inferred levels.?
Possibly even worse again if they had looked deeper ?


I looked at the report again.
They say it was clear the variance was in the upper levels and that it lessens with increasing depth:
“From the preliminary analysis completed by Cube and Ashmore, it would appear that the losses are largely confined to the oxide and transition zones above the 345 RL with the top of fresh rock boundary modelled at around 355RL in most of the area of grade control drilling. The changes in grade are greatest in the near surface above RL 395..........
The grade variation between pre‐mining resource model and detailed grade control model lessens with increasing depth.”

And that there is plenty of historical data to support this?
“The Gilbeys deposit has significant available geological information, and data on the historical pit production and reconciliation. A comparison of the historical resource and grade control data was also performed by Cube for the lowest levels of the historical Gilbeys pit to test reconciliation in fresh ore, which indicated that there is reasonable expectation that the trend of grade reduction indicated by Gascoyne’s grade control drilling in the oxide and transition zones may not continue into fresh rock.”

And that the whole exercise was intended mainly to understand what went wrong :
....“the focus has been on understanding the reasons for variance to resource seen to date, and to improve confidence in the oxide and transition portions of the resource to be mined in the coming months.”

And that they did look deeper ?
“Modelling of detailed grade control drilling data to ~65‐70m below surface of major ore source Gilbeys
(~85% of feasibility LOM ore supply) has been used to estimate an interim Updated Gilbeys Mineral Resource.
The new model provides increased confidence in both short term and long term ore supply, with similar tonnes but at slightly lower grade than pre‐mining resource model.
o Although resulting in a reduction of only ~4.1% of the total Mineral Resource within the planned LOM Gilbeys pit shell, the greatest impact is in the oxide and transition ore. Within the final design lower tonnes and grade were estimated resulting in a reduction of contained gold of 22,000 ounces”


Eshmun I welcome your explanation of how I read this wrongly meanwhile I do trust NRW and want to trust the people it is working with as well.
In terms of Cube and Ashmore Advisory, the analysts bought in to redo the assessments, Shaun Searle of Ashmore, was previously in charge of assessing GCY’s Sly Fox resource at 77,000 ounces when he worked for RPM and that seems to be performing as was expected .
- which gives me confidence in his judgements on Gilbey’s .https://au.linkedin.com/in/shaun-searle-55575a30


In case anyone wants it here is the link to the November 28 update;
https://hotcopper.com.au/documentdownload?id=uOMxKKzFkiWRTLKhOROKAxjvTDYD4g++wRGZp/Rgke92GA==
Cheers