RE: RE: RE: Just listened to BNNjsflynn603,
thanks for your analysis. given that so few holes were drilled why were so many people thinking that it would be a monster deposit? your explanation that these holes had small statistical significance because they were so far apart seems to be correct and that is what the software also seems to be telling us (it attached little significance to these holes), but why didn't more people anticipate these results. why were so many people projecting a monster deposit given that so few holes were drilled. the second question i have is why did the company decide to go for the resource estimate with so few holes especially if management thought that infill drilling would increase the resource estimate. i think we can draw some pretty unsettling conclusions from what happened:
(a) someone pressured the company to come out with a resource estimate (maybe a large shareholder - maybe sprott)
(b) management did not anticipate the resource estimate. if this is the case we have to ask why. the software used to calculate the resource estimate has been used before and being trained geo's they should have known that it would discount the resource with so few holes drilled. so that means they were intentionally pumping the estimate or they were completely out of touch with the methodology used in the calculation.
these are the questions i have and i wish someone would answer these questions.