Barkerville Gold Mns Ltd BGMZF

RE:Hammer, please address the following....

[hammer161]

For nuggety gold MS assays are a better technique than Fire assay. If no nuggety gold the result will likely not change and fire assay is just as good for a much lower cost. BGM has both types of mineralization, nuggetty and evenly disseminated. 

As for numbers up or down in a comparison - a result of less than 0.5 g/t or even up to 3.0 g/t may or may not be significant depending on the grade range. If you have a sample that is in the 10 to 20 g/t range from either method and then re-run it several times chances are will get variation of up to 2 - 3 g/t up  or down. This is considered normal as you are taking different cuts from the prepared pulp and no matter how hard the lab tries to homogenize it there will be differences.

I used the words dangerous, and misleading, because your calculation suggested that the metallics added 29 g/t to the average grade of the intervals you were making a calculation for.  While there was clearly an increase for some intervals you merelty added up  the "increases" and divided the total by by 7 to give  your addition of 29 g/t Au for each of the 100 foot interval. (note that the company uses metric grades but imperial lengths - another peeve of mine  - but that is another discussion). While I have not done a calculation myself using length weights as discussed in the other posts i would suggest that the over all increase in term of g/t is much less than this. As such throwing a number like that out there could easily mislead others to thinking that MS assays will add this much to  the resource grade. Given the deposit average, indicated and inferred, is about 2.5 g/t  this would be an across the board 10X increase.