>Wdurham
I think you are deliberately under-estimating the importance of this RNS and falsely accusing me of an utter ramp, when I have made it crystal clear that no reliance can be placed on the figures for investment purposes as there are many unknowns that need to be resolved first.
The only true way to determine the grade of the K5 area is with a proper bulk sample. The company plans to do this in early 2006, when the revenue stream is flowing. But you are quite wrong to discount the data and suggest that the eventual potential is 25cpht, because they have not tested the other areas yet.
The original Minegem survey is now in question. Primarily because they missed so many diamonds in the bulk sample of Satellite. The pictures from the recent tailings work proves that the processing was not 100% efficient and maybe seriously underestimating the true grades of both Satellite and Main.
All that the data does suggest is that the K5 area might be considerably richer than previously suggested and validates the multiphasic theories about the pipe.
The previous Minegem bulk sample only revealed 259 micro-diamonds per tonne. The new K5 sample contained 1282 micro-diamonds per tonne. That is 4.94 times more than the old sample. EPD have suggested that the distribution is similar to Satellite. So it stands to reason that part of Main may very well be the same grade as Satellite or at least close to it.
Until they have sampled the other areas and defined them, we can not determine the overall grade for Main. We can only suggest how the valuations might be altered by a change in the value of one area only.
Even your figure of 25 cpht might be termed a ramp, because by using the lower figure of 3 times the carats in K5, the grade would be 23.16 cpht. Only if you consider the figure at 3.5 times the grade would it be 24.86 cpht.
As we have seen, the md analysis indicates nearly 5 times the number of diamonds. But you can not equate 5 times the md with 5 times the grade of carats. You and I know that very well.
The point is that all the figures for Main have so far been based on the grade of 16.2 cpht. If the figures were closer to Satellite at 69 cpht, that's 4.3 times the value originally proposed.
Nobody is suggesting that the grade is uniform. So it would be wrong to claim such. However, it is possible to extrapolate a 'rough' valuation based on one area being the same as Satellite and that is what I have done. I have made it perfectly clear that these figures are my own and should not be taken as fact. So I don't see any problem
What I do suggest is that your review of the RNS and my subsequent post is 'clouded' by your bad judgement on another share. You've found out that the company was not as good an investment as your thought it was and are now seeking to poke holes in my theories to try and accuse me of bad judgement.
Just because NML have been effectively neutered by the Angolan Government for trespassing, doesn't necessarily mean that you can have a go at the EPD RNS or my interpretation of it.
I've been prudent with my figures and only suggested an increase of 3 times the value, the lower figure, for the K5 area. Your 25 cpht grade suggest that you've given it 3.5 times the grade. Far more than me.
so who's the ramper then? - because it appears to be you