All: I have comments from the illustrious MMU company president re. today's reported results, which I'll post right away here.
Leigh, you said,
>>One thing for all of us to keep in mind, is that these were the maximum values.<<
In that vein, I asked Marum president Rick Boulay as to jp's earlier criticism and received the following reply:
============================================================
Thanks for your question. I checked the post about reporting average values. It contained a comment about switching horses. I operate under fairly well defined disclosure rules. I can't withhold important and material technical information. I have to report the results as they are. Our diamond program is still very much in force. I don't quite understand the comment.
As to reporting averages they don't apply in this case because of the spotty nature of the initial sampling, the very small sample size and the different rock types. Sometimes you can overanalyze information. The important thing is that the numbers for the important elements are many, many times the expected background for these types of rocks. Now the trick is to vector in on the hot spots. We are actively working on that. However, you want averages, you get averages.
In grams or ppm
silver 1.9
cobalt 90
chrome 94
copper 26
manganese 950
nickel 135
vanadium 178
zinc 206
as a reference a typical sample of the type analyzed might have zero, one or at most 2 ppm of nickel. Here we have an "average" (ouch!) of 135 and a max value of 512 ppm representing hundreds of time background.
BTW, the MEG technical sessions were superb!
Feel free to post
============================================================
--------------
Rick Boulay, thanks again for taking time out of your busy schedule to respond to the public's questions!
- - -
There ya go folks, from the horses mouth (so to speak).
We are playin' ball now.
Cheers,
-j
:>
PS, It's okay to feel good about your investment! ;) |
