Re: Hard to keep following.. (Does Not Have To Be)
in response to
by
posted on
Feb 23, 2012 08:57AM
Keep in mind, the opinions on this site are for the most part speculation and are not necessarily the opinions of the company WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Lets have a look at a couple facts from Paul Grays report............2010.....now some may say I cherry picked the good information.........I challenenge you to find me the negative facts .... here is the link to make it a little easier .
http://steliasmines.com/wordpress2/wp-content/storage/Technical_Report_Files/Tesoro_technical_report.pdf
1.
Over limit assays for Au were required and were run by Group G6Gr on the pulps of samples 314804, 314807, 314809-314815, 314817-314819, 314824-314825, 314838-314840 and 314842 as well as for all 10 Dynacor Pulp
samples. Group G6Gr is a metallic screening Fire Assay method utilizing a 30gm sample for high grade >1 oz Au samples.
2.
Of the 40 rock (surface and underground) samples collected and analyzed by PDGGC during the Property inspection, 24 were sampled at locations marked with St. Elias sample numbers. These assays were then selected from the St. Elias database and correlated with PDGGC’s assay results from ACME Labs. PDGGC’s assay values were normalized to a g/t Au based on the PDGGC thresholds of analysis, e.g. the ACME analytical process G6Gr was taken as the most representative analytical process of the three, then if G6Gr was unavailable 3B50 was utilized. This process was deemed most effective as the G6Gr and 3B50 analytical processes use a larger sample size with which to conduct the analyses (thereby decreasing the potential influence of the nugget effect).
3. the fact that the assays are predominantly biased higher from PDGGC independent sampling and assaying is indicative of St. Elias’ professional reporting of the assays from the Tesoro Project these 3 statements have been copied and pasted ver batim from the 43-101 dated September 30, 2010