RE: My humble opinion.As I indicated in my last post I posed questions to Harp via email at this address;
harpsangha@douglaslakeminerals.com This is listed on the website as his email address...
But twice now it (the email) has come back rejected and undeliverable...
I have also sent them to the IR firm and to info@douglaslakeminerals.com
If I have the time I will call on Monday.
It is certainly correct that the assay lab reports results in g/t of the
material received, NO DOUBT. The description as "concentrate" is supplied by DLKM, the assay house doesn't care what or where the sample came from, just how much mineral is in the "stuff" they received... no ambiguity, no extrapolations back to the original sample, just reporting on what the assay house received and the values contained therein.
What is the sampling protocol for the pit samples being taken?
What is the process for reducing the bulk sample?
What equipment is being used to concentrate the sample?
How is the sample(s) concentrate being split to a size that can be shipped to the assay house?
How are sample localities being selected?
What sample spacing is being used?
How many localities are being systematically sampled?
What GP are being used to determine depth to bedrock?
(simpleseismic testing, using inexpensive (Bison 9000) portable equipment canbe mobilized in a backpack) If the placer is a re-worked paleoplacerthen most certainly the highest values will be found just above bedrock.
These questions are basic to sampling an alluvial deposit and should not be a mystery...
and should be freely shared by the company WITH US!