I'm not sure what the mystery is re true widths. If the drill is...

I'm not sure what the mystery is re true widths. If the drill is at 45 degrees (half of a right angle), and the azimuth is perpendicular to the strike, then the minimum true width is half of the intersection. So even that most westerly hole, assuming the 45 degrees is accurate CV23-184, based on simple maths, it would have a true width of at least 39m, and a true height of at least 39m too. And then we have pinching and swelling, and an adjustment to be made based on the neighbouring hole etc.

I got some on the short report impacting, mainly because I could understand that true widths were no total mystery to anybody who adjusted for the dip. I admit 63 degree dips etc are slightly more challenging to work out, and there will be a different minimum true width to min true height. at 63 degrees, assuming straight drilling, the width will be (90-63)/90 x intercept meters, so 0.3 x intercept. Height will be 0.7 x intercept.

https://www.rocksoliddata.com.au/articles/downhole-survey-azimuths/

Its fun when maths isn't too difficult, isn't it? lol

The lake issue is a well known issue. There is some uncertainty there, but they can obviously get started on land while waiting for the lake to sort itself out. If environmentalists want to cover 10% of our landmass in solar panels, what is one of millions of lakes in Canada to worry about.

The other stuff seemed to be irrelevant or unlikely to stick.