Bee, thanks, but I think I have somewhat of a grasp on this...
For one, unless Ashton releases full details on the core samplings, nobody knows what the core says.
For two, they never released full details on the original core samplings and again, no one can tell what they are comparing to.
I'm sure they did not include the overburden, but then in both cases, we cannot tell if they drilled through layers of kimberlite, how thick they were, if only kimberlite material was assayed (which I doubt) or if the whole strike length was tabulated together, which I feel they do. 36 tons out of the original 40tons might lead me to beleive that there was 4 tons (10%) of non-kimberlite material, but you don't that.
they know exactly what they got, we don't. I don't agree with their reporting and they should at the very least try to explain this disparity. telling us that the first sample was "of higher content but of limited extent" is crap, what's the "extent".
Does it mean sample 1 was was 20m and good but sample 2 was 200m and overall bad?
Oh well, I hope we got a 50/50 chance on K-14 that they drilled the right side of the fence... |
