RE:Paths -- would appreciate your thoughts on the attachedThe pdf version is dated Feb. 4, however, it is likely that it was only distributed to their paid subscribers for say a couple weeks, and so it may have only been publicly available now? I have printed it, and skimmed through it quickly so I'll make better comments, and I should be able to include some specific errors next time I post, (an hour from now?). He does not seem to have read the company documents with understanding, and he has not explained how the general comments he has discussed, actually relate to the geostatical procedures, even though these procedures were well explained in the report.
A quick look through is more than enough to see this as a very disapointing document. I am sure he has a good knowledge of exploration geology, and he has valuable work experience as a geologist. However, this is a specialized sub topic that requires taking at least one course, or doing some serious reading, and using at least one of the available software, even just to be able to tell the difference between valid criticisms and poorly explained nonsense.
The first paragraph on page 7 could only have been written by a person who does not have a workable understanding of geostatistical methods. I really do not like to criticize anybody, especially online, however, they put their names on this and sent it out into the world, so somehow I expect they will eventually have to admit and accept that it was unfortunate they did not find better advice, and check their information before going into print in the way they did here.