allenbow wrote: I have to disagree with the notion that samples received as a block over a strike that have an x or y content do not have to be released. While they may not describe in full the economy of the deposit, they do give the investing public a reinforcement, if only partially, of the nature of the amount of gold on average that has been discovered (and not what might be expected de facto) and also of continuity. Samples can be considered material in the individual or collective assessment of the company’s prospects. It is no different than the first set of drill results in hard rock mining compared to the
nth set of drill results. They are released as they are finished and provide a backdrop to the progress of the exploration venture. And after all this time, to say that sample results are not yet finished for at least a portion of CW and PR beggars belief.
For Tx just to reiterate his mantra that the ‘gold is there’ is not good enough for the public that is not interested in SH boards; they want to know the gold is there from the samples. Practically, not releasing results is also just to invite the criticism (and the ‘shorter’) that there isn't a resource at all (shades of the early days of PVG in 2013). Hence this price swoon.
I do agree that bulk mining [samples] is the only way to go and always was the only way to go from day one (and as the maligned Rhino10 trumpeted ceaselessly on this forum). And this could have been accomplished a year ago with a quarry license., It was maintained, without this arduous route adopted by QH that has gone nowhere in that time frame that we can deduce as to sampling CW and PR.
Finally, that SGS did not cover the latest ‘to be processed’ sample batches with a tarp to me is not only unconscionable but borders on outright negligence seeing as SGS procedures PDF mentions the word DRY five times in their bullet points on sample preparation!!!
https://www.sgs.com/en/mining/inspection-and-sampling-services/commercial-analysis/sample-preparation.
So, I am of the opinion that SGS should have been dismissed a long time ago in favor of a more robust sampling outfit and where oversight and implementation of proper procedures was/is
de riguer. And this speaks to Novo management.
You end by saying that one must invest in management. Yes agreed but that is not just a geology acumen or letters after a name. There are exploration heads of Novo that never are interviewed or utter a peep. Always it is just the Chairman. Regrettably, management and the management decisions, with all the operational fits and starts, and changes in methodology with lack of public disclosure is now also under question. If it wasn’t, we would not be at these lows.
You end by saying “Isolated sample and grade declarations are no more beneficial to one’s mental health than would be to tolerate the highs and lows of a recreational crystal meth user.” This is an absurd comparison and statement, and you know it.
In my opinion, QH needs to change his style and release an NR of some substance that speaks to the progress of the Mineralization Report and the filing of same.
A Progress Report is not saying we have bought more prospective land, but why it is prospective, and how far you have come along with the necessary MR on the other properties, and whether or not, in management’s view, that progress is promising (or otherwise). This has to be in a publicly and exchange disseminated NR, not some interview that most could easily miss. And yes that does include samples involving grade over an x strike distance and
y down dip. We have had none of these and we are suffering the consequences.