I have been a silent observer for a few months now but today's shake up encouraged me to post again. I would have to agree with @To the end's friend. In my opinion this is not a bad news release.

I agree with most of Sculpin's points.

There isn't really enough information in the news report to help us understand the deposit. These sampling results need to be combined with the structural data to provide us with anything meaningful. This integration of datasets is what should be occurring behind the scenes as St. Elias and their consultants generate a conceptual model of the deposit.

I would hope that they didn't only sample vein intercepts and I don't think that we should assume that is the case. Unfortunately they don't specify if a sample is a vein or matrix sample, so we don't know which (if any) of the samples represent disseminated gold values within the rock.

Sculpin, one thing I would like clarification on however is your comment:
"drill core intercepts will usually be lower than actual mining grade of the vein that was intercepted."

Could you elaborate on this? Statistically speaking, shouldn't there be an equal chance of the mining grade being lower than that of the core samples? I suppose it depends on the geometry of the veins and distribution of gold within them. I would just appreciate some insight to your reasoning.

I think that the important things to take away from this news release are:
1) There has been notable progress with the drilling program
2) As Sculpin mentioned, the mineralization has been found to continue at depth. This is a big development, as this was a major question to be answered by the drilling program.

I think we have some exciting days ahead of us here. I'm curious to see the interpretation of these results and also to find out what that anomaly represents.