REB, the non-capping is a non-issue at this point for SLI and does not ruin anyone's assumptions about anything. When drill results are reported, often a company will have a "cut off" of say 50 g/t for example. What that means is if a small section assays higher than that, it is capped at a max of 50 g/t so that it doesn't skew the overall results.

For example if a company reported 300m of 3 g/t (an excellent hole by any account), it would appear the drill intersected a 300m zone of mineralization. However, if the company did not use a cut off, they might have had a fluke 1m section that assayed 2700 g/t while the rest was nearly barren. Without the cap, they could use that high number to average across the remaining 299m to make it look economical. Whereas if a cut-off were used, the results might have looked like 300m of 0.2 g/t (uneconomical) instead.

Does that make sense?

This has no bearing on SLI at this time because their drill result intercepts were too small and the g/t too low to have any consequence re: non-capping. All drill results reported to date are sub-economic.

With regard to bulk sampling, I don't believe you worry about capping simply because chasing viens inherently causes skewed results and does not provide a 3 dimensional picture of a deposit the way drilling does. Chasing viens is akin to the drill bit bobbing and weaving its way through a mineralized zone for the entire hole. The results look impressive, but don't provide a true picture. This is why SLI must suceed with the drill bit if they hope to define an economic gold deposit.