I totally agree with your summation there. In regards to errors, as you will also know, visual core logging is always interpretive rather than definitive. Assays are regarded as definitive even though the assaying process is not completely human error free either.
2 different geologists interpreting the same log will seldom come up with exactly the same interpretations from observation. Lets hope the geo's from both GAL's and GSR/CNJ camp are fairly well in agreement on what visually constitutes disseminated and heavily disseminated sulphides. Just an example, iron and copper pyrites in thin stringer form are not so easy to distinguish from each other and the matrix visually. The darker pentlandite even more so. Add in some bigger blebs of sulphides here and there and its easy to misinterpret 2-5% content. A very experienced core logger will know. An inexperienced one will not. I have also seen some heavy bias and perhaps some pressure put on geo's to produce the best outcome for the company within regulations with some micro caps and juniors.
In this particular case, I'd say there is considerable pressure on the geologists to get it right being a new discovery for GSR/CJN and also having reference from the visuals at Gal's discovery. Geo's don't like egg on their faces but mistakes do happen.
GSR Price at posting:
7.2¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
