Here's what you said mate: "He brought up the point that while the results for hole one were fantastic and better than expected, the fact is that the depth was almost twice that of the historical data. His point was that this places risk on the validity of the data in general, and that the data could be wrong for hole two - this time, in the opposite direction. Thoughts?"
Thickness isn't depth. You got a bad reaction because you implied they drilled twice as far just to find the thing.
Here's what you said mate: "He brought up the point that while...
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 398 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
