I hate SUR.
hmmmmm......
where did you read that?
Don't follow every monkey as it jumps from tree to tree. Pretty soon you will be crazy. Read what I post as if it were written in the English Language. It takes understanding of syntax and grammar. Most people don't even understand what the sentences mean, and come out swinging. They are so sure of what I mean from the day I wondered in print (oh woe is me) if perhaps a mining company should not combine 500 feet wide of what is essentially a channel sample and say it is a bulk sample. They at the same time channeled the same width but no reports on what they found. This is disingenuous. 500 feet is a lot of width. Perhaps the tropical heat made it look like one big uniform horizon.
I am not saying they cannot do the work. Perhaps they should have done more cross sectioning, (and reported on such if just for their own edification), before doing the bulk. Perhaps they should have broken the bulk into parts to show the geological contribution of each part or strata.
Yassss. Do real geology for a change. Not bullshit the stockholder. There is always that temptation.
You can say geological truth on internet groups who wish only to hear the best about their heroes. The group here could not discuss the matter intelligently, and admit there was deficiency in the work. From there you do not have to break down and cry. It is not the end of the world. You just have to wait and see how the horizons really break down. They wanted to extrapolate a mine 3 miles long 500 feet wide and 1/10 of an ounce per ton from the one sample and few other occurences of gold. In this business you have to stick to the knitting and tell it like the drill holes tell it is.
Exall.
EC<:-}
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
