I understand that's a package. The point is uranium was indeed present. Those are not instrument "noise" and are not "non-detect" results, else you would see a "<" symbol or a "U" flag or whatever flag Canadian labs use to qualify the data. So, what I'm saying is that uranium was present. I'm not making a call as to whether they were good or bad. Not that it matters anyways, because they're surface samples, and the drill cores would have to tell us what is below for certain. But what costs more, gold or uranium? I only ask because several of those samples range from 4.5 to 6.0 to 9.7 ppm (or g/t)...which would not be too shabby for gold. Could you tell me what numbers one would like to see for uranium?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
