The drilling was not 'screwed up' as you say. The FACTS are they were chasing visuals, there was never any intention of logging and assaying anything other then visual mineralization.
I think it was screwed up, regardless of what their intent and practice was at the time. The results cannot be incorporated into a NI 43-101 report with anything above an inferred category.
Carmax commissioned a 43-101 report in 2012 and some of the conclusions were:
Historical drilling and core logging practices of the previous operators are not known.
-
The drill holes, in RPA’s opinion, generally reflect the width and orientation of the mineralized zones but drilling factors such as core recovery, the lack of some downhole surveys and geological logging, and poor sampling practices may impact on the accuracy and reliability of the relevant results.
An unknown number of pre-2011 diamond drill holes were previously sampled by Carmax by selecting whole pieces of core at intervals down the hole rather than splitting core and submitting one half of the core for analysis as is industry standard.
Some sample intervals in the database are overly long or were taken from zones of poor recovery (e.g., less than 50%). These are unsuitable and were excluded from the resource estimate.
Older drill holes should be gradually expunged from the database as new drilling is conducted. RPA further recommends that until these older holes are removed entirely, any resource estimates generated from this data be classified as Inferred. The 2011 drilling validated the older assay data to the extent that the older data can be used for a preliminary block model only.
