A couple of legitimate observations regarding today's N.Release:
...the data are generated by analyses of chips from reverse circulation drill holes, and thus are not directly comparable with earlier analyses from core holes on other kimberlites.
(I found some answers regarding this)
This is significant, because:
Kimberlite samples will tend to break around the hardest and largest grains. Statistically when you break a sample containing diamonds there is a significantly higher than random chance that a diamond will be exposed on a break surface. In an RC situation this will result in a high probability that diamonds will be released into the fluid.
Therefore for an RC test to be valid, the drill fluids have to be screened down to at least 60 mesh (about 0.15mm) in order to obtain a quantitative sample. Today's News Release states that only the chips were sampled.
Ashton's NR results may fulfill disclosure requirements, but they sure are misleading to most readers.
At the AGM somebody should ask the company if the fluids were screened.
If not, why not?
If so, then were they analyzed? If not, why not?
If so, then what are the results?
- - - - - -
Also, consider the following:
Based on the small reported sample sizes (the results are actually pretty good for a 400kg composite sample), these are likely reconnaissance samples which were quickly processed in order to assist in the prioritization of work tasks. Remember, Ashton's technical team has a crushing work load and is trying to prioritize tasks to be completed before spring breakup in 1999. This means speedy looks at new pipes -- if a qualitative sample has a high count, that pipe gets put in the 98-99 drill program, if not it gets pushed back to 99-00 or 00-01 or 01-02.
_ _ _ _
Cogitate at your leisure.
Cheers,
-j
:> |
