Hi @MarkyBoy49,
Re: your very interesting posts ( post and post) and herbertsmithfreehills' "VISUAL INSPECTIONS OF MINERALISATION: TO REPORT OR NOT TO REPORT" discussion about "new best practice guidance"
First let's check our calendars. Why, its the twenty-first century !
Today there is no workplace anywhere operating to Western OHS Standards that is outside the range of digital communications (at least within a few hours). Sunlight is generally pretty reliable, as is electric power derived from it. So the ordinary digital phone is always able to take a useful photograph and send it anywhere, instantly.
Operator training required ? Minimal.
Operator too busy elsewhere ? Ridiculous.
A sample of anything at a workplace can be photographed under standard conditions of surface preparation, perspective, and lighting to produce a repeatable and meaningful record.
Geologists and Geoscientists may interpret indefinitely about the how to describe the content of a photograph. The value created in that interpretation is that it is easily referencable to
subject matter texts (aka accumulated human knowledge). Photos are not.
But the photograph, with annotation of time, place, and photographer name, is the gold standard.
In mineral exploration terms . . .
a) a sample worthy of description in text is always worthy of a photograph,
especially if the feature is "visible"
b) surface preparation is quite repeatable, eg. polished by rotating drill string
or fresh fracture of a rock, wetted using some surfactant, drained,
and photographed in standard lighting with a scale, colour and focus calibration bar
c) published within 2 business days, or a "please explain" demand is published
As a reader of ASX Announcements over the last 12 months I have seen . . .
a) listed companies report "off the scale" readings from field instruments,
but never publish a sample photograph (in one case . . . never publish an assay either !)
b) listed companies publish pXRF readings (even photos of pXRF readings) without photographs of samples (pXRF readers are handheld electronic devices, like a digital phone with extras)
c) listed companies report contradictory assays from multiple assay methods
without a single photograph of a sample
d) listed companies publish lengthy prose about a published photograph
without marking the feature of the photograph they are describing.
e) listed companies publish photos of samples in the tinted shadow of a box lid
IMO the debate about when or whether to publish an interpretation of a drill/rock sample
is an argument about the continuous disclosure of opinions. Who cares ?
What I want to see is continuous disclosure about the undebatable and repeatable
images of samples. I am waiting to hear reasons why they are not demandable.
As for the recent little dance of feint and parry between GAL and CNJ/GSR ?
Well, we can only laugh.
One pretending that the other doesn't exist or hoping will soon run out of puff,
the other just appearing to stuff around. Geologists must be beside themselves.
In the light of GAL findings, a cursory glance at historical TMI RTP images of Mt Thirsty
shows that CNJ/GSR have some explaining to do.
GLTAH and DYOR
(20min delay)