Explor Resources Inc. (fka EXSFF)

[gharma]

Actually, the NI standards are an attempt to inject science, to remove the subjective, etc. but you are correct that there is much room for differences of opinion, particularly around issues of the geologic interpretation.
I am pulling out three successive statements from your post.

Either that or they will look at the spacing and realize that infilling is necessary to be certain the gold is consistent.

However, the high percentage of gold hits seems to lean in favor of favorable infilling. The problem is money to infill.

I entirely agree with the first and last of these. As you state, any potential buyer/partner (i.e. the "they") will have their own opinion as to what the drill work says, and yes it is a verybig money issue.
As for the middle statement, I cannot so easily go along. Yes, the vast majority of drill holes have intersected mineralization. But have you ever tried to line up intervals with gold between nearby drill cores ? For the most part we only know that there are numerous smaller veinlets down there, but a far as I know not on single intercept has been established as part of the same veinlet that is intercepted in another hole. We have no cintinuity information. To get the information, given the small widths of most intercepts the infill drilling would been to be prohibitively close.
TPW is not like Valley of the Kings where veins are wide, and so a fan of holes 50 meters away the has some drill holes intercepting something a approximately the same grade and width has a high likelihood of being connected. Connecting 1.5 m of 10 g/t gold at 800 m depth to another couple meter intercept at 5 to 15 g/t that is some 50 meters away horizontally and +/- 25 meters difference in depth is just a very highly uncertain inference. Even doubling the number of holes so there is an intercept only 25 meters away horizontally is not going to do much to change the resource estimate.