More brilliant results, page-26

@LEZOK you and your 'good friend' are ignoring a lower grade cut off ( 0.5g/t ) which they have obviously used to report the sections of core which they consider worth assaying and economic to mine .Perhaps your friend should have taken the time to look closely at all the intercepts as shown in the appendix and added them all up , then the methodology would have been patently obvious.If he had taken the time to read page 9 of the announcement it clearly states and I quote " Cut off grade for reporting of intercepts is > 0.5g/t with a maximum of 3m consecutive internal dilution included within the intercept ; only intervals of > 3m are reported"......
The 147m @3.1g/t is the length weighted average grade added together across the entire hole and clearly demonstrates the selected mineable units above the 0.5g/t cut-off
Furthermore if your friend had bothered to go to page 5 of the announcement there is a link he should have read :
http://www.cardinalresources.com.au/technical-reports/.
There is no way the ASX or TSX would have allowed them to report as they have if it was untoward and nor would a competent geo have signed off on it . I wonder what your friend's motivation is ? He has cast a nasty slight upon the integrity of the geologist who signed off on this announcement and on the Cardinal team. I hope both he and you have deep pockets