RE: Why are...Today 15:46
TalkingSense,
Just a correction, the RNS concerned "bulk sample results for the first "four" reverse circulation drill holes as well as the final "two" holes drilled at the Kuboid Hill prospect in Creswick earlier this year" So in total the RNS covered 6 (4+2) drill holes not 4 as you state.
You mentioned in a previous post "The holes that had the greater widths are yet to be reported for the re-tests" and again mentioned it in your last post "first four holes which were not the higher width". I don't read anywhere in the RNS about the width i.e. that the narrower widths have been reported and the wider width holes will be reported in the future. Please could you post a link to a RNS or an ECR document that states that the holes with the greater widths are to be reported at a later time. Thanking you in advance.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the RNS states "ECR has received final results from bulk sampling for the first four of the 17 RC drill holes at Kuboid Hill (being KHRC012, KHRC008, KHRC009 and KHRC015). Only KHRC012 generated any reportable results from the bulk sampling" If KHRC012 was the only RC drill hole to generate any reportable results, do you consider KHRC008, KHRC009 and KHRC015 drill holes to be duffers? i.e. no reportable results.
You state "There will be more interest around the remaining 11 holes including the 'interesting' ones." and you ask "Will that be enough to shift the SP significantly" I think the key word you identify is "significantly". For me, if ECR just come back and say (which I'm expecting them to do) there is more gold, bigger gold and across a wider area. A fairly standard jam tomorrow response, then it's 50/50 on whether it moves the sp up, and for me a slim chance of it moving up and staying up significantly.
However, if ECR tasked an external independent geological company to come in and fully assess the whole range of bulk sample results to give an independent measured, indicated, and inferred statement then I think that would light the touch paper of ECR. I would add, looking at the RNSs, I don't think ECR have enough results in the data vault to hand over to a outside independent geological company at the moment to generate that independent measured, indicated, and inferred statement. I certainly wouldn't have confidence in an independent measured, indicated, and inferred statement if ECR published it today (that's my own opinion/ belief).