"Rule of 100" for pay-dirt gold?
You see all these gold drilling results, and it's hard to distinguish the "great" results from the "somewhat good" results reported by gold exploration companies. (Actual "bad" results -- like "we found little or no gold" -- seem rarer in press releases.)
In fact all kinds of complicated factors affect the real value (absolute depth, distance from mill, orebody consistency and type, management issues, etc.) of a drilling report, but it's nice to have a few "rules of thumb" for the non-expert.
One rule I'm considering is a "rule of 100": multiply the width in meters by its average grams of gold per ton. If the result is a number over 100, that's good and noteworthy. If less, its a nice report but somewhat normal.
For example the recent "North Atlantic intersects 9.32 g/t over 16 metres" was good because 9.32 x 16 equals 149.32 which is more than 100. Such "good" results have recently appeared for Orezone, Cassidy, Guinor and others in West Africa.
Now of course this is too simplistic and ignores zillions of relevant factors. It treats 50 meters at 2g/ton just like 2 meters at 50 g/ton. I'm only proposing it as a rough (easy) "rule of thumb" for skimming through drilling reports.
FL
