StrangeAs several posters have postulated, the most important point of the bulk samples was left out. What was the thickness of the samples and where in the basal conglomerates were the samples taken from? Top, bottom, middle, from top to bottom?
The presser gave the thickness of the 1.4 gpt sample taken above just above the basal level (40 Centimeters). QH and the BoDs are not mindless. Why leave out how thick the basal samples were when you give out the thickness of the sample just above it? 3 possibilites:
1. QH was worried that thickness where the bulk samples were taken is not representative of overall thickness results. Which brings up the question of why release the gpt if the sample is misleading?
2. The bulk samples were taken from the lower 10 centemeters of the basal layer and who wants to release results that will totally ruin Christmas for the sharedholders.
3. The bulk samples were taken from the upper portion of the basal layer or over the entire basal layer depth which was 3 to 4 meters. 3 to 4 meters thickness of 17 gpt gold looks a lot better than 10 centimeters thickness. But, ES/QH want to further depress the Australian Juniors by hiding the these great results while ES scoops up all the shares he can get of what he wants.
The market chose option 2.
Dark thoughts to think that possibly QH chose the area with the most hits over a small area at the bottom of the basal layer with the metal detectors and used the results to convince ES to invest. First the original bulk sample was reported as taken from the upper portion of a 15 meter thick conglomerate layer. Then as time past it was changed to the upper portion of the lower conglomerate layer. Now, who knows where it was taken from. Perhaps it was just bad luck, or good luck depending on your view of things to drop from 67 grams per ton to 17 gpt for samples taken in the same area. Oh well, ES is only down 50% from his recent foray into buying on the open market and will probably make some money on this deal in the end. Probably.