Well done for questioning the colossal mismatch between the...

Well done for questioning the colossal mismatch between the descriptions of sulphides recorded in the logs and the metal content in the intersections for which assays were reported. The mismatch is so far out that you question the usefulness of the logs in the

Assuming they did in fact assay other intervals where the logs suggested promise, their warning "sulphides & metal contents are not directly correlated" is woefully inadequate.

It looks like it should have been:

may not be correlated at all, or in fact inversely correlated where perversely metals may be present in low-sulphide/limited mineral-marker intervals, and absent in high sulphide/very good mineral-marker intervals.

e.g. MTRC007 weakly disseminated (Po) 0.2%), and, MTRC009 heavily disseminated (Po, Cp, Pn) 7.5%).

Their should have been some acknowledgement/explanation, at least in regard to how rare a colossal mismatch such as this is, if in fact they do occur with competent logging - it obviously makes you wonder about the quality of the logging in the first place.

Sometime ago I emailed them with a technical question related to an elevation error in one of their reports. I did not receive a reply and followed up with about 10 phone calls over differing times and days, non of which were answered. Shows the regard they hold their shareholders in. Good luck with your efforts. I've voted with my feet. Not the type of exploration company you want to hold.