Jaded,XRF RC drill results can run into the same problem as...

Jaded,

XRF RC drill results can run into the same problem as diamond core depending on the procedure taken by the geologist. We can say that RC samples by nature will be more homogeneous than diamond sample but is it homogeneous enough without additional sample prep? That is up to the geologist to decide and his methodology to defend.

In my view, to do XRF RC results properly, you would still need to pulverize the correctly split sample before taking multiple readings for an average. If the reading is taken straight off the sample bag then it would not be a very representative sample as the RC chip size is still too coarse for the sample to be homogeneous.

However, if you sieve the RC sample and only analyze the fine fraction, the result might be more representative. But depending on the minerals, some like sulphides are softer and so they will tend to end up in the fine fraction preferentially. If that is the case, the pre-sieving will be the wrong method.

So really, I don't believe XRF should be used for analyzing drill hole samples unless the sample can be proved homogeneous.

gosouth,

I agree, I too have seen too many stocks run in advance of the release of assay results and no doubt suspect some form of insider trading.

I too favor your investment view on ROX in your recent posts. Good luck to us and the loyal ROXers!

AJLD,

The argument still stands for NQ2 drill holes. 2011 cm^3 instead of 2827 cm^3. 78.5 out of 2011 is still only 3.9% assume they zap the 6 meter intersection with 3600 zaps to cover 100% of the core.

True, you can tell whether the core is massive sulphide by the weight but is it 100% nickel bearing sulphide? There are many forms of sulphides some of which carry nickel (Pentlandite), some carry copper (chalcopyrite), some carry nothing economic at all. You only know by analyzing a homogeneous sample. Having said all that, I too look forward to the next hole and all of ROXs drill holes this coming year. Good luck to all!