When you hear the term "Significantly Lower" they are talking statistics as in the samples were statistically below what they should have measured out at. PERIOD!

Since the blanks and standards are randomly inserted into the sample runs the inference is that the assays for the entire batch are statistically "Significantly Lower" than they should have been.

WE have absolutely no way of knowing what the real assays should have been or what they were measured at (e.g. it could be 0.1g/t when it should have been 0.125g/t or it could be 10 g/t when it should be 10.25g/t). Anything else is PURE speculation.

Remember that we have E1 samples in this batch from infill drilling that the geologist should be visually able to ball park by now. We will get great results from those.

As to samples from E2 we know there is Nickel, Copper and Chrome because these were visually observed in the core. As to Au and PGM's we are postulating (EDUCATED GUESSING) that they are there based on the local geochemistry and the known geochemistry of other deposits that are being used as exemplars. HOWEVER, until we get assays everyone is guessing as to what those grades are.

There is no PROOF (in the scientific sense) but there is lots of evidence. Clearly there is enough evidence for them to continue to drill on E2 when they could have moved on to other anomalies if they were not confident that there was something there. E2 may range from interesting to exciting from a geological perspective. Only the geologist knows right now.

I too would like proof of grades for E2 and as with eb=veru=yone else we will have to wait for the assays and see what is there. They may be high or low but we will know that they are accurate.

Waiting impatiently but waiting.