RE:RE:Did NXE dump SRKWell you are a wizzard, getting hung up on minor grammar, when the real issue as has been pointed out many many times, is to follow 43-101 procedures properly, ensure the drill spacings are correct, have proper supervision, review and approval of resource calculations, and don't make wild assumptions. Rubicon should never have happened! shadeson wrote: First of all Sudzie you could start out by forming complete sentences especially first thing in the morning.. SRK uses the same modeling software as everyone else does. Same software plus same data and assumptions should equal a similar resource calculation no matter who does it. In Rubicon's case SRK overstated the gold resource in their 2013 report (overstated by 91%% indicated and 86% of inferred ounces) compared to the updated 2016 report.)
It was Rubicons decision to move ahead with the project ignoring the risk resulting from making a mining decision based on a PEA and a largly inferred resource.
Some of the causes of this "gafuffle" include:
-The 2016 SRK Geological Model demonstrates that the F2 Gold Deposit is more geologically complex and the high-grade gold mineralization is less continuous than previously understood
-The decrease in reported mineral resources are mainly the result of the new drilling information, changes in modelling approach and restrictions to the depth of the interpreted extent of the gold mineralization
-The 2016 SRK Geological Model benefits from information that was not previously available, including approximately 94,600 m of infill core drilling within a concentrated shallow area of the deposit
-The 2016 SRK Geological Model is more restrictive, reducing the volume of gold mineralization. Therefore, this resulted in a significant decrease in tonnes, grade, and ounces in the upper-levels of the deposit.
- New data shows limited high-grade continuity - modelled high-grade domains represent 17% of that in 2013
43-101 guidelines can't prevent poor coorporate decisions like building a mine based on only a PEA or going to mine a thin, nuggety, high grade and poorly drilled deposit. To me, since SRK was still retained to do the updated 2016 work it indicates that Rubicon was not dissatisfied with their work and accepted that accepted responsibility for themselves.
Everyone always feels like the smart guy after a fiasco like this, like you said Sudzie, Analysts asleep? Supervisors Asleep? But alsmost nobody sees these things happen WHILE they are happening, even if the exact same thing is repeating itself RIGHT NOW , too caught up in the greed and feeding frenzy I guess.
But to your Nexgen question, I would suspect that the reason SRK was no retained is partly because of the Rubincon fiasco, but for different reasons: I suspect that SRK learned a "lesson" at Rubicon, and now prefer to error on the side of caution by being conservative, and conservative doesn't appear to be Nexgens middle name.
And as giz62 would say.... JMO.