To be fair, lmcat, it appears that maybe some assays were done by the Southwest Research Institute group in 1964. They collected samples at 160 locations, but only refer to 50 assays that they did to evaluate "locked" gold values in the placer material. They gave a range of gold results (nil to 0.67 oz/ton, with an average of 0.19 oz/ton). The lab was apparently the Union Assay Lab in Salt Lake City, Utah.
I assume all 160 of the samples (including those assayed) were run through some kind of on-site equipment to determine the amount of recoverable gold in each yard or ton of material.
But, without a description of sampling methods, the data in tables or plotted on the map, or the actual assay sheets, it is all pretty meaningless.
A little different story for the 2005 Lewis report. There was no attempt to assay anything - 15 bulk samples were run through an on-site plant, and the recoverable gold was weighed. Nothing really wrong with this approach, although assaying the reject portion and the black sand might have made for even more favorable results.
As some over on the GDSM board have said, they don't care about these old reports anyway - they are anxiously awaiting the Phase I and Phase II reports. Fair enough!
However, what is not being acknowledged is that the GDSM/WSRA/Gold Tech estimates of "reserves" at the Gold Star claims are based on completely untrustworthy data, and reflects very badly on the various parties issuing these estimates.
