What negativity? I treat the conglomerate as it is reported. Not...

What negativity?

I treat the conglomerate as it is reported. Not as a fantasy like a few people do.

ARVs 47 patch is not conglomerate. But it may have originated from conglomerate (most probably, given the appearance of the nuggets), which has eroded away and the heavier nuggets trapped and concentrated at the area ARV mined. Is it being negative to note ARV didnt proceed with bulk sampling when everything was set up to do so? Then to report the reasons why when in this is the case it is blatantly obvious when you understand the nature of a typical alluvial deposit trap site?

You cannot even guess what the original conglomerate these nuggets came from was like. It may have been a 10m layer at one ounce per tonne. Or it could have been a 10 cm layer at 2 grams per tonne. Because its nuggety, not all the nuggets get washed away with the rest of the conglomerate material because gold is heavy. So uneconomic conglomerate can produce small areas of concentrated nuggets like patch 47.

ARV are simply reporting their results. If those results excite anyone then that cant be bad for the SP. But the results are what they are and certainly dont mean anything much in the overall context of conglomerate.