I agree with almost everything you have said, you wont get much argument from me ...only a little.
Firstly, I am 100% supportive of these geos at Cascavel. Thiago, Luisa, and Samuel are the most honest people you could find anywhere, and they are also very helpful to work with.
Certainly not blaming these geos.
It was Chief Exploration Geologist Thiago who pointed out to me that it was totally ridiculous to represent a "nugget strike" in a narrow quartz vein of probably around 600mm, and smear this result over a 3.4m downhole distance ...just because several meters above this strike, there was another tiny quartz vein with a minute quantity of gold.
Far from being some non-geologist who doesn't have a clue, I was informed entirely by the most experienced geologist on site.
I think the term "grade smearing" should only be used where there is an attempt to mislead and that would rarely be by the geos I would think.
In this situation of a gold deposit mostly in the form of coarse nuggets and always within a narrow quartz vein (mostly 100mm to 200mm), then I agree with Thiago, it is misleading to smear the result over 3.4m.
This is why he was so concerned about this one drill intercept skewing the computer projection we presented.
I don't know who recorded this intercept, but it was years before I was in Brazil.
The rest of your post I pretty much agree with ...except for one point:
The smartest man in the room is never the thief.
Cheers,
SJB
OGX Price at posting:
0.3¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
