I am quietly confident. But there is obviously a risk that the original identification of visible gold has not equated to consistent and significantly positive gold assay results, for whatever reason.
The original observations were done on whole (ie. uncut) core, and with grains or small nuggets of free gold in narrow intersections it can get 'smeared' on the outside of the core, giving an exaggerated impression of its abundance. That does not equate with the description accompanying the photograph though, or the presence of several widely separated free gold bearing intervals in the logging.
It is more likely in my opinion that there has been an assay problem due to either the nature of the gold (granular or 'spotty', ie. erratically distributed in the samples), or the mineralogy of the rock having interfered with the fire assay process.
One of my concerns with re-assaying, particularly if it is a 'nugget effect' problem with free gold, is that they may run out of core or need to do a whole core analysis, which might necessitate re-drilling the original hole. However, the intersection is only 65-120m, which is not a major ask provided they can get back onto the original drill site easily.
