Umm, no. If they sampled perpendicular to each vein, then they sampled the true width of each vein, therefore that on its own is an "intersection". If you add up each of these, you would have a "composite intersection". Which is 1.96m. I really don't know what you are saying otherwise.
It doesn't matter how prohibitive something is. You can only report what you have done. They haven't done a continuous sample across 28.5m, therefore they don't have a 28.5m intersection. A factual way of reporting this would be to report the actual width of each sample, and the grade each sample returned.
The other issue with extrapolating to 28.5m is the fact each channel wasn't the same width. If they sampled the same width, every 5m, across 28.5m, whilst it still wouldn't be correct to call it a 28.5m intersection, it could at least be a reasonable estimation. However, the inconsistent channel sample widths suggest they've sampled the full width of any vein they encountered around each 5m mark. Again, there's nothing wrong with this if you report each sample individually, but it obviously produces an inherent bias if you try and extrapolate across all the gaps. Also, if they actually described what they did do in proper detail instead of leaving people to speculate, this would be less of an issue.
Expand