RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Timeframe for amending an NI43 golddle, Ok. Lets agree to disagree on Rubicon. I could ask why the CEO, a geologist with a PHD, would have have taken a non representative sample but what is the point. You don't have time to explain.
The top cut issue is very relatively minor in the big scheme of things. There are many more pressing issue, like those that steveaux indentified which are based solely on the observations taken from the data. Three samples from the same core have the same identitical grade of 25.04 oz per ton. Don't you find that very odd?
Then there are the questions about why PG used spheres for a search radius. That might make sense in some low grade deposit with a uniform grade but in a veiny nuggety deposit? Hello?
And what is the data stamp on all of those high grade intercepts?
And why did a director and CEO resign this year from the country. And isn't it convenient that the little price run-up started just in time for those end of August convertibles and warrants. What a coincidence.
I am not being negative. I am merely looking objectively at the cold hard facts on the table. I will look at the data as prep'd by steveaux and see if I can present a more positive story. I don't rule that out but in the end I'll still wonder about the quality of the excel spreadsheet data so, no I don't expect to be positive next week unless there is new information brough to the table.
BGM. Give us something that makes this picture look positive. Release more information in a format that is easily usable by your investors. Look at what steveaux was able to do working from the report PDF. You should have released this information long ago, much like Rubicon released their drill core database with supporting cross sections and the like.
And golddle, you can put the tin foil helmet back in the closet. I am not working for or with anyone on this.