Ann: Quarterly Activities Report , page-6

It says they want to investigate the Italiana discrepency issue, they are twinning the holes. It doesn't suggest that they haven't been checking for residual gold in the tails by fire assay as they have been reporting that they would do all along.

Anyway - we'll see. As you note, it looks like they will quarter the core for split by split comparison of the two assay methods. Which by the way, is not something they have said they will do before and haven't done. But, I agree that sort of verification should have been done at the start. However, if it was all about the assays, then it wouldn't be necessary to waste money twinning holes and any of the existing half cuts in the shed could be used instead. But at least now it will put any concerns anyone may have about BLEG to bed.

If you are a holder, then I don't understand why you haven't rung them to see if they have actually been checking the validity of the gold assays like they said they would, not to mention the ICP-MS work. Furthermore if it is all about assay methodology, then it infers that the geo team is particularly stupid or negligent, and if that is ones belief, then why would one still be holding?


Note: If they do twin the Italian holes exactly then the overall tenor of the holes will be higher than BYR's (near) vertical holes because the Italian holes intersected the supergene at high angle and stopped just as the primary ore was reached. But no matter which way you dice up BYR's upper splits, the numbers never reflected what the Italians achieved. Just keep this in mind if RG does an RG with headline numbers on any shallow angled drilling that may delude the market that the deposit is higher grade than first reported.