edit: reply button not working...this was replying to @2ic post...

edit: reply button not working...this was replying to @2ic post above

In this instance I wholeheartedly agree. Not including the relevant drilling and assays in an easily accessible form really gives me the irrits…and using the cop-out of ‘see this list of old releases’ is poor form and lazy…just because you are technically meeting the current disclosure requirements doesn’t mean they can’t/shouldn’t do better. Especially if the aim is to stand out from the crowd.

People can say ‘ah well what does it matter…it is signed off by a QP, so it’s all good’ What could possibly go wrong?
Well basically everything, if the MRE is not fit for purpose, or ends up being used beyond its current limitations. Things like inadequate understanding the grade continuity and basing subsequent decisions off an MRE that is under-informed, Abra comes to mind as a recent example (just imo). All the way to the real shady end of the spectrum like Bre-X, which no way that could occur in this day and ag…enter Red Pine Exploration in Canada!
Just to be clear I’m not at all insinuating that there is anything of that shady nature here…and in this case I don't even think its trying to hide or obfuscate data, I reckon its just lazy habit i.e. tick the box its been released previously. could be wrong, just my view on it.

Beyond just DRE, across the industry Id like to see it become mandatory for companies to make the individual (un-cut) assays available in tabulated form. So that people can make their own assessments on the narrative that is being put forward from ‘significant-intersections’ and compare it to the raw data.
Some already do, but its few and far between, Fireweed Metals (tsx) for example release their full drilling database alongside the normal announcements of ‘significant intervals’. They even have a wed hosted leapfrog central model on their website that includes the individual assays…so you don’t need your own software to be able to look into the detail.