"We were led to beleive it was because there was so many different minerals in it that was not accounted for ,but I am beginning to think D-2 was acomplete failure and this just a stalling factor."

It was just after the preliminary D2 assays by Dr. Mungall (>50% chromite) that he left a secure professorship at U of T, and came on board full time. I sincerely doubt that was because the samples were (profanity deleted). I sincerely doubt that.

Chromium oxide assays are likely one of the most difficult to perform, and to perform well. There are all sorts of interferences possible, not the least of which come from co-deposited iron, as in ferrochrome. Moreover, it takes a very long time to run a sequence of samples (bottleneck at reactor access), as you would have to do for a core with many tens of metres of chromium showings. Add to that the fact that they've had two drills running for over four months....just think about *that*. Do you think they'd use two drills for four months on a "complete failure"? To stall us?

No, D2 is the real deal. There is no other conclusion that fits the information we've received to date.

Lar