RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Makoko location relative to Kakulalol. oh so shocking. Really, I think this is just reflects a difference in our temperaments. In past reports and news releases, IVN intimated confidence in their depositional model and I believed them. When they found mineralisation at Makoko, I took it in stride. I thought I did a pretty good job of explaining that already, but maybe it's too nuanced for my writing abilities. Sure, maybe my having more confidence than you in IVN's geologists is misplaced, but that's my issue, not yours.
So, to answer your question, if I was an IVN geologist, I would be happy that the model worked, but I wouldn't be surprised. Beyond that, I don't need much external validation for doing my job well. You appear to find it a big deal that the model worked and want to make a big deal of it too. That's great! Different strokes for different folks and all that. That I don't have an issue with, but doubling down on your pedantry and calling for an apology on behalf on the poor IVN geologist victims is just silly. What exactly do you propose to attain by your virtue signalling on this board?
I tried to engage you and address your concern with the definition of step-out in good faith. That doesn't appear to have worked so well. I propose we attempt to stick to pertinent facts in the future. To that end, I'm looking forward to the expansion of the Makoko and Kakula West deposits toward each other.
QWERTYUIOP wrote: This is shocking. Imagine if you were the geologist that discovered Makoko and your boss or your peers came up to you and said "it's just step-out Bro". I would like you to make a public apology. All you need to say is "sorry".