Re: It is never as big as the anomaly. ----------------------------------------
I never said that it was...In fact, I'd think anyone would be hard pressed to find even the most novice rock hounds to make such claims... (Keep in mind, the anomoly is not the only mineralized area of Batoto.)I used the size of the anomoly (600m x 1000m) only as a reference in that it discounts the identified mineralized area by about 97-98%....
Doesn't that seem fair to you?
Again...as posted in the July 7, 2005 news release "According to SUR President Mr Rennie Blair, “results from our on going exploration continue to expand the known area of alteration and mineralization now covering an area of AT LEAST 8 kms long by 4 kms wide"
By using the news releases I've attempted to make a fair assessment of the area of mineralization that Sur may encounter...I imagine the contrarian would be jumping all over my back if I were to have drawn numbers out of thin air as you seem to have done. (478 feet wide, and 1000 feet deep and 6000 feet long? even though it was mentioned that the 478 ft of mineralization was still open in all directions) Even using the figure of .4g/ton (as you suggested), and discounting the mineralized land by 97% we still arrive at a potential figure of just over 11 million ozs of gold (again this does not include the copper or silver.