Thanks for answering that point for me
@Nodferatu.
They report a visible silver-gold mineral which is "possibly" a sulphide but have not gone to the minimal expense (~ a few hundred dollars) of putting it in thin section under a microscope. Standard practice in mineral exploration and more critical in this particularly case as the nature of the mineralisation is unknown and has been the source of mystery for coming on 2 years. As mentioned in a prior post the microscope should allow the identification of the type of sulphides and identify if gold and PGMs are present.
My reference to "thin proof" was in relation to the sampling method and how representative it actually was over the gabbro outcrops. There is no evidence that the precious metals in the composite sample are associated with the silver-gold mineral ("possible" sulphide) observed on mass. It could have all come from one richly mineralised outcrop or vein. There is no objective proof favouring either of these two possibilities. If they had have collected and run their metallurgy ("assay") scheme on unique spatially separated outcrops then we would have much more confidence that the mineralisation is widely disperse through the rock unit and that the silver-gold mineral ("possible" sulphide) is likely the source.
It seems to me we have gone full circle back to the old Juma East days were we can see it but we don't know what it is.
There seems to be no doubt in some peoples mind about any of this. Maybe they should be the ones getting on the front foot and explaining what form this "ionic" gold occurs in and while they are at it also explain how you can have these mysterious forms of unidentified and difficult to assay gold and PGMs occurring in an altered silicified rhyolite package and at the same time have the same or similar unidentified mineralisation occur more than 100km away in two gabbros separated by about 50km. Esh
