RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:chrysos revolutionGosh, orophil, for a moment - look at what you are saying!
You cannot have it every which-way. What you have just said is that even with a new and more complete method of (non-destructive) assay - that there will still be "selective" bias. And you are parking this at the feet of the company - in fact those that do do the selection at the core-shack! This is a half-baked conspirary theorist notion that you might wish to reconsider. I can tell you right now that if you brought up this idea while having a beer in a Gander bar with "the boys" what the response would be...you'd end up with a thick ear right quick!
You are attempting to cr*p on their livelihood from an uninformed position...I'd be taking that a bit seriously, if I were them. Just sayin'
el d
orophil wrote: exacrly...so there is still very much a sampling bias as to what ends up in the cannister ( that probably is of minor concern) but there is certainly bias as to which intervals of the core to select and cores out of which holes.....management stated 'cores from recent drilling'..that' leaves alot of latitude....obviously no overburden is selected and anytning with visible gold alway is and that's eactly how it should be...off topic but I have to wonder how much effort is exerted to insure lab results are not allowed to be accessed by others than lab management and nfg management...imo some body always 'knows'...whether its a janitor, or a taxi driver or a baby sitter....would love to be a fly on the wall at a watering hole in gander...I think they may already know