I'm still trying to understand why SNO went directly to a bulk sample. I recall reading that it was DeBeers recommendation but I can't find any written reference to this in a news release or other reliable source. If you look at the excerpts below taken from NR-03-26, July 21, 2003 you can see some of the rationale for the bulk sample but there is still no reference to DeBeers.

"The primary goal of the Summer Exploration Program at Mud Lake is the identification of the outcrop of the kimberlite beneath the glacial cover. Such an occurrence will allow a bulk sample (500 tons) to be easily taken."

"In undertaking its Mud Lake exploration program, Snowfield has elected to assess the diamond content of the body by undertaking a bulk sample of the kimberlite which will provide a considerably higher degree of precision than would be available from a micro-diamond count from a small sample of drill core. A large bulk sample is preferred over a smaller sample since the distribution of diamonds within a kimberlite tends to be variable and large samples are required to obtain a representative parcel of diamonds. Usually, micro-diamond analysis of a small sample from drill core is the only avenue available for establishing a diamond content of a kimberlite when the body lies under a lake or at depth, or is significantly removed from readily accessible infrastructure. At Mud Lake these obstacles are not present and obtaining such a bulk sample is feasible and will enable Snowfield to assess the diamond content of the body with a considerably higher degree of precision than would have been available from the caustic dissolution of the small core samples obtained from Snowfield's winter drill program."

So, it appears that SNO felt it would be very easy to take a bulk sample from the outcrop. I'm not an expert but isn't it risky to sample only one small area of the sill and use this to deduce a distribution thoughout the entire body? What made them beleive that this was the correct option? Maybe that's where DeBeers or maybe another was the influence?

Anyways, that was what I thought might have been one of the errors but maybe it was a calculated risk that didn't work out.

Holding for better days,

BGT