It was an intersection, they reported it, along with others, standard procedure ... look at what you posted today from HRA, in this post to which i am replying now you are concentrating only on the first sentence, and ignoring the last -
'The intersection is not true width. GQC has
been working on drilling a scissor hole that
would allow them to give the market a better
interpretation of the zone, including its
true width. Apparently the drill went down
a fold limb after it cut the massive sulphide
intersection (14.56m @ 4.2 g/t gold, 86
g/t silver, 3.13% copper and 3.29%
zinc) which means the actual width is much
narrower than the intersection – but still
very significant. The best guess – and we
strongly stress the word “guess” until a scissor
hole is completed - is a width of 20-30
metres. That is still a very significant intersection
and it’s increasingly clear that Goldquest
has a new discovery of importance on
its hands here.'
Also note these two sentences from immediately above and immediately below the results table -
'The Company wishes to emphasise that the actual geometry of the massive sulphide body will not be defined until further drilling has been undertaken.' ... then table between, then - 'Table 1: Length-weighted average grades of drill holes. Note that the lengths are drill intersection widths and that there is still insufficient data to calculate true widths of the massive sulphide body.'
goldquestcorp.com
Quite professional imho, i see nothing deceptive here ... always you have to wonder about true width versus intersection length, that's our job as much as it is that of the geos ... we just gotta get better at it, that's all ... meantime i think gcq has a decent crack at a major discovery here, and i'll be following it real close, holding various amounts of shares according to how i perceive circumstances to warrant [which sounds so fancy, but i have to get better at this too, lol] |
