It is clear to me that my previous comment was taken out of...

It is clear to me that my previous comment was taken out of context. I therefore proceed to clarify it.

The latest announcement issued by the company states on page #4 under the heading "Palladium Equivalent" the method used to calculate the reported grades. The reported grades are lower than the grades obtained from the assay results. The reported grades are as follows:
80% of the assay's grade for Palladium

80% of the assay's grade for Platinum
70% of the assay's grade for Gold

45% of the assay's grade for Ni

67.5% of the assay's grade for Cu

60% of the reported grade for Co

I guess the company decided to this for the sake of transparency and to be conservative. The fact of the matter is that the assay results for the historical holes should be as follows:

60.6m @ just over 1.55 g/t PdEq (just over because the discount on Gold, Ni, Cu and Co is greater than 20%) from surface
14m@ just over 2 g/t PdEq
12m@ just over 2.05 g/t PdEq

9.2@ just over 2.12 g/t PdEq

14m@ just over 1.85 g/t PdEq

84m@ just over 1.37 g/t PdEq
55.1@ just over 1.57 g/t PdEq
57.85@ just over 1.27 g/t PdEq
50.95m @ just over 1.25 g/t PdEq

Also conservative are some of the prices used namely, Pd $1700/oz ($2500 now), Ni $18500/t ($27000/t now).

Now that I have hopefully clarified my comment, my point was that, as far as I know, the industry standard is to report assay grades not recovery grades (what the company has done). So, I suggested both assay grades and recovery grades be reported simultaneously. This would serve two purposes, one: assay grades would allow investors to compare "apples with apples" when looking at other assay results. Two: would highlight the extensive metallurgical testing being done on the ore to prove it is commercially viable (I take the opportunity to highlight the metallurgical testing is still continuing with different grades of ore to further optimize the project).

IMO, with the information at hand, the market reaction to GAL's result is nothing short of highly speculative, at best, but more likely laughable. It would serve people well to check TEM and MHK charts just to name two recent examples.

If anything, the company has being overly conservative by not highlighting the Rhodium potential, previously brought up in this thread.

If the company wants to continue being overly conservative is fine by me but at least show the actual assay grades alongside so the market can compare "apples with apples"

To close I quote GAL's 286m MC hole 33m@ 2 g/t 3E (Pd, Pt,Au) 0.32%Cu 0.3%Ni from 144
Our MC is only 59m and we have a JORC resource that dwarfs GAL's highly speculative hole

Our upgraded MRE should be announced any moment now