time to give it a rest @NDIBK04?You’re repetitively banging the...

time to give it a rest @NDIBK04?

You’re repetitively banging the same drum and essentially ignoring the very reasonable responses you have received - which is why people are starting to get pissy with you.

The company hasn’t claimed what you say about your namesake hole. They in fact cautioned temperance. We even have had a director publicly state well in advance in Hotcopper that this would not be a discovery hole. But the company have always been encouraging about the hole as a proof of model/concept and this has been borne out. I am pretty sure you agree with that.

as for the lost bornite. Visual estimates, as ICG consistently warns, cannot be relied upon. For one thing they are surficial so are guesstimates on volumetric content and open to error on classification
CuFeS2 - chalcopyrite
Cu5FeS4 - bornite
FeS2 - pyrite
in core from rock that’s been subject to hundreds of millions of years of geological activity in a very active super structure. It’s not as easy as you seem to think to be certain of your classifications so I’m not clear why you so easily dismiss the views of many geologists to focus an attack on the ICG geologists (being several).

Please don’t align with that other party you mentioned - you are better by far.