OTCQX:BGMZF - Post by User
Comment by
hammer161on Jan 10, 2015 9:48am
112 Views
Post# 23305183
RE:Page 151. Current tech report. BGM website - hammer read
RE:Page 151. Current tech report. BGM website - hammer read
Wango - please produce the post where I claimed compared ALL re-assays if you are going to spout off about this. Your problem is that you won't be able to because I never said a made such a comparison. Also the results you show from the 2012 report are for a small subset only and do not indicate that it will be the case for the larger program. Snowden indicated the POTENTIAL for this and did not state it would be a FACT. You clearly do not know the difference between the two. Also take a look at the first paragraph you post - you know the one about previously un-sampled sections - it shows that about 10% of the infill samples had a result of greater than 0.4 g/t. That 0.4 g/t is about 15% of the 2.74 average deposit grade. so how do YOU come up with adding 2Moz from the infill program based on results like this? You are nothing but a stupid, stupid pumper.