6.4 you got to be joking, page-3

There are some true believers in IDC no matter what the market is saying! Frankly Mt. Kare is Mt. Kare it is not Porgera though the true believers are convinced it is a Porgera doppelganger! Mt. Kare has similarities geologically to Porgera but exploration history is replete with sure-fire repetitions located near major ore bodies that don't come up to scratch. IMO Porgera is cited too often and too hard. IDC must stand on its own resource which currently doesn't inspire that much confidence IMO. The likelihood of another (albeit) smaller mini Porgera is in IMO not guaranteed either though I doubt whether the true believers would agree ! It irks me that no cognisance is given to the significance of probable true widths when giving mineralised intersections especially as the resident geo. should have a good idea of the local structure .Im certain several of "the thick intersections" are acute subparalel cuts .