I have got a lot of this attitude to questioning results rightfully, since 1996 on SI. The motivation of the miffed is that they would like to see the stock go higher and they think I am cold water on that, so they bait, and overstate what I did say in order to make my opinion look blacker and more condemnable than it is. I ran into so much of it over really lugubrious promotions that on occasion the anti sentiment reached epic proportions. And to set the record straight, I did not call anyone a liar here. Let's not go too far. I did say promotional. But what of it?
You are absolutely right. I did not call the company. I don't intend to. In fact I have not called any companies since 1997 that I know of. I used to call Bre-X now and then, but the correction of that impulse is to the betterment of the character.
Company news releases are supposed to be complete and self explanatory. You should not need to ask too many questions unless you are curious about the nature of the geology or what the company plans to do. What they candidly think. They are also supposed to be up to CIM standards which surprisingly to many geologists have not changed much in 40 years. You can get old tomes on the engineering regs back to 1955 and you will find that they say things much like the regulators want today. What has changed substantially is that the term potential ore no longer has a place of any meaning in reports.
Now in this case they are in a grey area because the "bulk sampled". But it is a misnomer. They did a large channel sample across the structure in 340 KG lots. The individual lots should have been individually assayed and tested. They were not. The reason for this interpretation is that the sample may gfive a false impression (because it was a cross section), of the grade of the entire body fairly. No doubt it did do that. As well, the sample probably was contaminated with oxidized enriched material from erosion. They could not help this much, but they should have stated it would be anomalously high.
You may have to call the company. But it won't do you much good. Try getting a mineralogical education and wandering the bush for 30 years sampling orebodies and you will find there is less and less to inquire about.
Whatever the problems with the bulk samples, the drilling will tell the tale. I hope they don't grind that all up and just report the 146 metres.
EC<:-}
