Apparently the company does not even know how to read its own assay reports. They posted an assay sheet (from 2004!) for a result they say is from the working face, at 29.2 oz/ton gold. Well, if you look at the actual assay sheet, there are two assays, not one. The sample labeled "ADA #7L Face" is only 0.142 oz/ton. For an open pit mine with significant tonnage, this would be very good. For an underground mine with a narrow vein, and limited tonnage, this result is a loser.
The other sample, labeled ADA Mix, the result is shown as >29.2 oz/ton. So, the result is not 29.2 oz/ton gold, as claimed by the company. They apparently do not realize the ">" means the result is higher than the labs instrumentation can read, using the GRA21 method (fire assay with gravimetric finish). It can only report up to 1000 g/ton (29.2 oz/ton). The result is actually higher, but being amateurs, they didn't understand that.
That should be great news that a sample has such a high gold content, right? Well, maybe, but probably not. All it takes is a single particle of coarse gold in a sample to throw it off high like that. Legit mining operations take hundreds of samples, or thousands. Not a sample or two. Getting widely ranging results is not explainable if your sampling is limited to two samples.
Amateurs. Understanding how to read a lab report is basic.
By the way, how were the samples collected? What does "mix" mean for a sample - mix of what? Who did the sampling? How were samples protected from tampering? They're reopening a mine adit based on two samples? From 2004?
Did I mention these guys are amateurs?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
