Bayfield Ventures Corp BYVVF

RE: RE: Do you honestly like this news?

[MudCreeker]

As another bystander who has nothing at stake here, let me say that this is certainly not bad news.  But it is interesting to see how it is "spun".

They hit 1.1 m of 89.96 g/t.  Around it there was another 45.5 m of 0.16 g/t.  So they get to report 46.6 m of 2.28 g/t (high school math).

Now, when it comes time to do a NI 43-101 resource estimate, what will they "count" from this hole?  0.16 g/t is not economic, so that 45.5 m doesn't count at all.  To avoid what they call the "nugget effect", the 89.96 g/t will likely be "capped" to some lower value chosen by the consulting geologist based on what is expected in this formation - maybe 50 g/t or so. 

Estimated width is 75% of the drilled intercept.  I know the nr says it the other way around, but that is clearly a typo.  There is simply no way to drill at an angle through a vein and come up with an intercept that is shorter than the actual width.  75% is a typical value used when they think they've hit the vein at about a 45 degree angle.  High school geometry.

So what counts is .825 m of about 50 g/t.  Not bad, and possibly economic in the right setting (i.e. high grade narrow vein underground).  Spun to 46.6 m of 2.28 g/t, which sounds like a high volume, low grade, open pittable deposit with exciting potential - the kind of deposit that all juniors seem to be looking for at the moment..

Of course, you can't blame management for spinning news.  That's their job.