"less significant"

HIGH-GRADE NI-CU-PT-PD-ZN-CR-AU-V-TI DISCOVERIES IN THE "RING OF FIRE"

NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

From_Sudbury

Rank: President [?]

Points: 10111 [?]

Votes: 332 Score: 3.4 [?]

Your Vote:

Please Log In to Vote

Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

"less significant"

posted on Jan 25, 2009 05:27AM

Can anyone clarify what exactly is meant by the following phrase...

"While hole NOT-08-44 had the best drill intersection (not true width) of massive sulphide, a further 10 holes drilled in the area returned mineralization that is considered less significant. "

My interpretation.....

"had the best drill intersection of massive sulphide" seems to indicate some massive sulphides in at least some of the other holes....just less than 14 metres

"mineralization that is considered less significant" rather than saying "mineralization that is less significant" or "no significant mineralization"

Which begs the question....how much mineralization was there? "Less significant" could be 13 meters of massive sulphides vs 14 metres....and it could also be 50 meters of semi massive sulphides

Regardless....as is the case with Windfall....why don't they just tell us what these drill results are, rather than making these vague comments.