Not sure how you can say this is "misleading". It clearly states...

Not sure how you can say this is "misleading". It clearly states the grade of each metal, and the corresponding "equivalent" grade and how this is worked out.

--------------------------
? HRC011 6m @ 3.2% Cu, 94 g/t Ag, 4.28 % Pb, 15.5% Zn, 0.29 g/t Au from 95m.
(6m @ 9.5% Cu equivalent* from 95m)

*Copper Equivalent Calculation Explanation:
The copper equivalent (CuEq) calculation represents the total metal value for each metal, multiplied by the conversion factor, summed and expressed in equivalent copper percentage. These results are exploration results only and no allowance is made for recovery losses that may occur should mining eventually result, nor metallurgical flowsheet considerations. The copper equivalent calculation is intended as an indicative value only. Copper equivalent conversion factors and long-term price assumptions used follow: Copper Equivalent Formula (CuEq) = Cu% + Ag(ppm)x0.012 + Au(ppm)x0.625+ Pb%/Cu+Zn%/Cu; Price Assumptions- Cu (US$7,500/t), Ag (US$30/oz), Au (US$1,500/oz), Pb (US$1,900/t), Zn(US$1,900/t).
----------------------------

Nobody knows recovery of ANY metal in ANY deposit until met work is done. This applies to SFR, SIR, YTC, NCM, anyone. This is why they do Met work as part of any PFS/BFS.

I know lots of single metal deposits that look great, and then the Met work is done and it starts to look pretty crap.

BTW, SIR is a Nickel/Copper discovery, not just a Nickel discovery.