Originally posted by jezzathegeo
An MIK is being applied to 500 holes (?) which implies a lot of samples but it's unclear what the variance of the samples is or why MIK. If there has been subsequent drilling, then the resource should (must?) be re-estimated. The idea of MIK is to deal with a highly variable population. Why does it say in the original report that a 40g/t top cut was applied?
Jezzathegeo. Is that for geologist? Anyway, have you read Page 6 of the 31 December 2015 QR?
I'm also awaiting the results from those 51 holes recently completed in Sherwood and "expected" "in December". Very interested!!!
But, the proof of the pudding (what the majority of us are happy to wait for) is what the nett result will be from that 100,000 mt deal with Lilac.
I can't see how shareholders could expect more to be making their decisions regarding the prospects of this company. They are not going to get anything more definitive than what has, and will be, released by the company.
Let's get mining so all of that "possible" conjecture can be settled one way or another.
Are your concerns based merely on semantics? With respect, I'd say that very LT holders would be bored out of their brain getting involved with those concerns that you have raised.
