RE: RE: Found the 2008 Technical Report"Any geologist here know if the highlighted part means something ominous?" you said.
Answer: You put a question mark on a statement. I don't know which geologist you refer to as being here and would not venture what any geologist is thinking as you do not need to be a geologist to know the significance of the part you highlighted. The highlighted part tells you the significance. It tells you that falling metal prices and ore dilution caused operations to cease.
"What's perplexing is the the discrepency between the 2008 Indicated& Inferred number & the 2011 Wardrop Report," you said.
Answer: No it is not perplexing. In 2011 they used historical cores that had not been assayed in 2008 because the previous operators assayed the metal sulfide cores only as that is what they were mining. In 2011 an additional 13,500 assays were done on these non-sulphide cores that contain the PGM grades that account for the difference between 2008 and 2011. These cores are from areas not yet mined.
"However the April 2011 Wardrop Report, which had a different indicated& inferred, than the July report. Lee goes on to say the Aprilreport overlooked results past 250m, and up to 500m. listen here," you said.
Answer: You misquoted Lee. Lee said from surface to below 500m
"So it implies most of the Inferred Resource added since the April 2011report is below 250m, and amendable to underground mining. Which isfairly large number," you said.
Answer: Can you really make such and implication from your misquote? Read the full report.