The PR mentioned:
"2.61 tonnes of concentrate containing an average of 81.19 oz. of gold and 94.97 oz. of silver"
Is that 81 oz total, or 81 oz/t, for a total of 81 x 2.6 = 210.6 oz? About the only way this could be an "average" would be if they had a number of assays of different piles of concentrate. Each assay would have been oz/t, or some equivalent, so I'm pretty sure the 81 oz is a weighted average and should be oz/t, not average.
This is inexcusably sloppy wording. Why can't they just come out and clearly state the grades of the ore they are processing? Reminds me of the PR that reported "0.75 oz per ton precious metal values". Well, 0.75 oz of gold is over $1000. 0.75 oz of silver is $25. Big difference. It should have read "0.75 oz gold equivalent".
I had thought that the problem of poorly worded PRs would be fixed when RS arrived. Clearly that's not the case. What's more, this is not just a problem of poor grammar or phrasing- it's a problem where they haven't used correct and industry standard wording and phrasing to report some of the most important numbers we have seen in a long time. They actually got the mining terminology wrong. RS needs to get this act together- even if it means heads rolling. And I really hope RS wasn't responsible for this gaffe.
