Hi B, I made a "back of the envelope" calculation for PY3 before...

Hi B,
I made a "back of the envelope" calculation for PY3 before I saw yours here. Mine was more optimistic in the horizontal and probably SG and less so for the height so there is a difference in the end result.

	Column 1	Column 2
0	AML WALFORD CREEK
1	Ball Park Beer mat calculation for PY 3 per Km
2	20*100*1000*3.5 SG	vertical height*"down dip"*strike along fault
3	7,000,000.00	optimistic tonnes per km Py3
4	2% CU 0.1%CO	high? Cu and low? Co est grades
5	$120	Cu $ value 40Lb @ $3/pound
6	$50	Co $ value at $25/pound
7	$170	Total Cu Co ignores Pb Zn Ag
8
9	$1,190,000,000	Insitu Cu Co Value

I suspect your number is closer to reality because the mineralisation probably tapers off significantly in "height" as the distance from the feeders along the fault increases.

For ease of calculation, and lack of detail atm, I have assumed a roughly tabular shape with a rectangular cross section whereas a more triangular shape is probably in order.

A lot of assumptions are needed for the dimensions bu there are significant intersections that give an idea of what grade can be.



The revision of model by AML to "ribbons" (Py2/3) of mineralisation (including reasonable Co) along the FRF tipped me into taking up some shares. While these "ribbons" will probably require underground mining (Py3 almost certainly) the grades appear to be there.

Since drilling has been completed the company will have a good indication of sulphide intersections in the Py3 and other zones but has to wait for assays before reporting as shown below for hole WFD0266 mentioned in the 2/11 report.