Same here. But I am doing it with considerably more geological and analytical experience than most posters. Most don't appreciate questions, that on SI over the last ten years I was arch infamous for, but time and trouble have proved me right if not 100% of the time, darn near.
SUR's own information indicates that it is the wider qtz veins that run and the veinlets do not. It is apparent from the high grade grabs that the values are not pervasive and low grade across wide widths.
What is most important here is that the company has not made an effort to establish the values in each sector in their sampling, preferring instead to spread it over the entire width. This is patently a breach of 43-101 regs.
That is all there is to it.
The answer that the mineralization does not appear to be controlled by one or two veins is completely disengenuous.
Because something has not been established, and at a glance, which is useless as an arbiter, may not be true, does not prove the opposite case. (i.e. the opposite case is that pervasive mineralization may be assumed, as concentration is not proved)
In other words you need proof that the negative assumption ,(which all too often is the geological truth), is not true. You cannot just assume the Pollyanna Porphyry case. This is a heinous misinterpretation of geological scope or license.
EC<:-}
AI
