I know for a fact that the company has faced extraordinary delays in receiving assays. There was a mix-up at the lab, but it doesn't matter. They're not going to blame the lab for it. They've got protocols now to keep it from happening again, but they couldn't do anything to sort out the mix-up and still be in compliance with 43-101, in the context of sample security. I was talking with Frank at the end of October, and he showed me one of the daily assay reports. He'd just received preliminary assay results on a hole that was completed on April 15. That's more than six months. There were more than 20 holes with data that day, running through to holes drilled in August. The company has decided to take the heat, and not blame the lab.
The net effect is that all the assays were coming back randomly. And that meant that they don't have, and won't have, complete results for any hole until they pretty much have complete result for all holes sent in before the new protocal was established. And that means that they have to spend a good while interpreting the whole thing, a massive amount of data, because they can't even begin to interpret it until all the data are in. So that part will take longer, also, but it just makes sense to do it that way.
In September, nobody knew that there was going to be a problem getting the assays back in a timely manner. If you stop and think about, some of you guys are using that precise argument to slag Candido, i.e. assays shouldn't take that long. Why would he think differently? Any reasonable person would assume that. However, sh$t happened.
Lar
