What bothers me is, if you have a valid assay scheme as is claimed, why combine spread out samples into one bulk sample? From a sampling perspective you are just losing spatial information. (ie where grades are high and where they are lower or don't exist at all). If all the contributing grade came from only one locality/sample you would never know by sampling in this way.
It's the same argument I made for the Juma East core sample. The distribution of the grade down the reported drill intervals is unknowable when sampled and assayed in bulk so can't be used to define usable economic ore boundaries. Smaller standard intervals (of 3m, 4m or 5m) needed to be assayed (and then split down to 1m intervals for higher grade zones) in the case of RC drilling or similar with cm precision in the case where ore boundaries are clearly visible in diamond core. At Juma East the diamond intervals were reported with cm precision but that was meaningless in terms of the grade distribution. For novice investors or people taking a cursory glace at the results this precision would have disguised the more important fact that the grade distribution was still unknown.
If they need a bulk sample to effect an assay then that should be disclosed to shareholders, otherwise conduct sampling in a regular way (ie sample 1, sample 2 etc). That way we would be better able to judge if the whole rock is mineralised or not, which seems to be the current implication of the current results and a few commentators. Esh
BBX Price at posting:
20.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
