Well, I actually visited Merks' webpage, which was interesting to say the least, and he is obviously convinced of his convictions. Perhaps he has good reason to believe in them, I don't know, and I certainly don't have a sufficient mathematical background to argue for, or against, his beliefs.
I would however like to make a few points:
1. Geostatistics, or kriging for that matter, actually plays a minor role in resource evaluation (in a mining context) in my opinion. The main player is actually the geology - understanding your orebody, or at least trying to understand the processes that govern grade continuity. I guess this is really what modelling the variogram is all about - trying to apply a mathematical model to a mineralising system that we, as geologist really don't fully understand yet, at least not with the sample spacing we tend to have at our disposal. This brings me on to the second point.
2. Busang (Bre-X) cannot be blamed on kriging, or any other estimation method currently in use - that is just ludicrous. The blame lies with the geologist/geologists who decided to salt the core - in other words, the geology, or the process governing grade existence and continuity were incorrectly represented - purposely it turns out. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I for one welcome advances to the task of estimating measured (precise, imprecise, accurate or inaccurate - whichever you want) values from a small piece of core into a larger volume of ground. However, it irks me when all that is really offered is very destructive criticism. Despite his offer to contact him in the contacts section of the Merks webpage...something tells me that not a lot of people would bother.
My two-cents worth.