Very roughly speaking, (at this early stage,) the gold is rich...

Very roughly speaking, (at this early stage,) the gold is rich enough to pull out the copper for free; or the copper is rich enough to pull out the gold for free! From their drilling so far, the richer the copper, then double rich the gold. We'll have many intercepts where bornite gives high copper results....does the gold content move up equally fast with the copper content here? We have a strong evidence trend so far of higher copper through chalcopyrite = 2?x higher gold...does higher Cu from bornite = the same 2?x higher gold content? Which phase of mineralisation put the gold in these rocks? So far the phase seems correlated with the chalcopyrite deposition, see aforementioned ratio trend.

What am I trying to say badly? ok, if .5% Cu accompanies .5g/t Au, and 1% Cu accompanies 2g/t Au, and 2%Cu accompanies 5g/t Au.....Does this sequence keep goin up&up with bornite-derived Cu the same as it does with chalcopyrite-derived Cu? I suspect it does...but does copper from bornite rather than from chalco upset this trend, due to a different depositional history? Or is bornite just copper that's so rich that it changed colour?

I'm confident that bornite is a sign we're onto higher copper grades, I just wonder what that will mean for gold grades at the same time. It might mean wonderful things? Or maybe low chalco = very low gold, high chalco = very high gold....bornite = high copper but random/unrelated low/high gold. The bornite deposition process in our rocks might've been 100% independent of the gold deposition process, whereas we know that the chalco/gold connection is strong.

Sorry I'm rambling but it's a fisnickety question I have no one to talk to about.