Its proposterous for her to even suggest drilling from the same platform areas that she previously drilled showing less than desirable results. I don,t think we should rely on any data from the drill program or the vaguely written trenching results and will need to do our own work. It may be a waste of time considering any of that data and would be more prudent to put our own couple holes in guided by Quantec. There are so many inconsistencies in the data from 2010 forward, for example, there is documentation of historic data specifically saying that veins do widen at depth, whereas recent news releases seem to suggest otherwise. You can also correlate the geophysics to the mineralization as widening at depth on the known underground workings. As little as common sense would tell a non professional that if you have documentation from 100ms of underground workings that geophysics shows connects to an ovoid shape anomaly, that the anomaly has to have at least the same grade or more, as well as being spread over a much larger area underground. This is what the geophysics is used for, to find deposits and mines, not little singular veins that would not even show up unless at least 5 meters wide. I had heard a comment one time that the granodiorite was what was setting the Quantec off, this is bull, the country rock in the geographical area of the Tesoro is granodiorite, meaning that the whole geophysics would have been one color and useless if this was the case. And if you look at the chargeability in TABLE 1 of the provided link, you will easily see the distinction between the granodiorite chargeability and the sulphide chargeability, the chargeability being what corresponds with our C-1 vein having a consistent grade of 1 ounce per ton roughly . So for to drill in these areas of high chargeability and have nothing, seems to defy logic.

IMO

http://www.eos.ubc.ca/ubcgif/iag/foundations/properties/2physprop-iag.htm