Are we overlooking something

I've followed the banter back and forth and it would seem that there is a predominance of postings skewed towards he drill not having intercepted nickel sulphide. Time will tell on this, but what intrigues me is the fact that when the first hole was drilled and the results reported on 13 May, the announcement categorically stated that the hole had intersected iron sulphide. This was obviously based on visual evaluation because the report then goes on to state that samples will be sent to the lab. The iron sulphide was identified ( visually) as pyrrhotite and some pyrite
So what intrigues me withis 2nd hole is why it was reported only as intersecting sulphide, but no mention was made this time around that it was iron sulphide ( if in fact this is what it is) . It does not add up in my mind. They have not been prepared this time to name the sulphide so it leaves me wondering whether it could be nickel sulphide. Given the hype around Fraser Range exploration in general, I can understand BOA opting not to identify the sulphide ( or at least state its not iron sulphide) as this could lead to speculative frenzy. In this case a more rational approach would be to await the lab assays which is where things stand at the moment. On the balance of probabilities based on this observation I am inclined to the view we have hit nickel ( or at least we have not hit iron sulphide).