SYR or TON? Time to jump ship?, page-144

Thanks, Pauldola, for a clear and logical post.

The published cross-sections look fine. My problem is that they do not seem to correlate with the tables of drill hole data. I don't want to bore people with lots of numbers, but listing a few of the diamond drill results will show what I mean. I will just mention the hole number, the total depth, and the amount of that depth which has been reported with a graphite analysis .

D1 373m depth, 120m reported
D5 429m depth, 379m reported
D6 220m depth, 67m reported (3 bands)
D7 113m depth, 10m reported
D8 135m depth, 77m reported
D9 200m depth, 62m reported
D10 218m depth, 128m reported
D11 153m depth, 51m reported

It is entirely possible that the remaining portion of the hole in these cases contains mineable graphite. But we don't know, because the company has not said anything about these intervening stretches, or whether they were included in the reserves calculation.

It's not easy to come up with a good reason why the company would not provide results for the full length of the drill holes. If the data is as good as the cross-sectional diagrams suggest, why would it be omitted? With no information to go on, people can hardly be blamed for fearing the worst.

The answer may be something as simple as limited time available for key people to assemble the data. But a lot of decisions hinge on getting it right.

Cheers, Prime1