Lar - I appreciate your kind response. And I thank you for clarifying the fact that, as you say, "human error could always affect the results of any analysis, of course, despite the use of internal standards."

Any investor in junior explorers who has "been around the block" knows the story of Bre-X, and the giant fraud perpetuated on the public that lost so many investors so much money. This was alluded to by an earlier poster (forgive me for not remembering who you were - but thanks!)

Earlier in the history of our company, there was a human error that led to bad analytical results, and errors in assays. The company's internal cross-checks caught this, and a press release came out explaining that the company caught some "irregularities", and that assays did not "jive" with our cross-checks.

It was determined that due to human error in the lab this occurred (I believe there was some cross contamination of samples, but it has been awhile since that news release, so feel free [anybody] to correct me on this). In any event, the company announced that assays would not be forthcoming as everyone was expecting, and that the assays were being re-run.

The simple fact is that there are so many opportunities for human error (failure in correctly calibrating the assay equipment, failure to re-calibrate properly prior to a new assay, failure to follow procedures to prevent contamination of samples, etc., etc.).

The bottom line is that there could be a good reason that the current geologists or directors ordered re-assays of these, as they called them, "high grades" of chromite. I think from what you've said that you agree with this assessment.