They should spend the summer going back through the entire database and cross check with original lab assays with a fine tooth comb, no point drilling anywhere until you have confidence in the accuracy of the database.
This sentence is pretty telling:
Overall there has been a substantial increase in linear grades (interval thickness x grade) above the 0.5g/t cut off. An extreme example of the change is RAB hole TGAR0033 previously documented as 4m @ 0.5/t Au from 35m now is re-reported as 9m @ 4.4g/t Au from 30m.
The previous errors occurred in ppb to ppm conversions, subsequent assays of metre samples for composites not being entered, assays not being loaded, fire assays of leachwell tails being entered as primary assays, and holes not being entered into the database.
Not sure if its a PRX database problem or a previous operator/explorer who handed over historic data but if that result had been entered correctly then there would have been a rush to go out and drill more holes around TGAR0033 years ago. Thats a decent intercept.
I wonder how many other drill holes are missing and/or in the wrong place?
This is actually good news though - its time consuming but its still much easier to fix a database with errors, than go off drilling and spending money in the wrong places because your database is wrong.
PRX Price at posting:
3.5¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)