Message from Barn Breath Hello, gang. How are your bruises healing today?
Anyhooo.... I received an email from Barn and thought I would pass it along to you all, as it is his thoughts on the 43-101, etc. He graciously gave me permission to post it, so here it is, folks...
**********************************************
Fraser Mac's update---came out after the market closed yesterday, I think. It was "reassuring" and most needed, BUT I thinkit was "RUSHED" out, quite a bit.
They made at least one mistake, the way I read it. They OVERSTATED / MISSTATED the number of meters
to be drilled during the WINTER Drill Programme! It SHOULD have read that the drilling target was for the "Winter AND Summer Drill Programmes".
Also, it was, IMHO, too short, in that it 'amazedme' what, in summary, they included in their reasoning------AND----perhaps, more importantly what they DIDN'T INCLUDE and explain.
TANNIN makes some very good points.
I wasn't aware that BNN threw together GCU with TRR, when talking about the days events. Maybe this poster misunderstood, or he heard the info second hand---I don't know. IF true, Dalhman Rose's statement is EXCELLENT REINFORCEMENT.
It is quite OBVIOUS that a lot of people DON'T understand the VERY CONSERVATIVE Nature, by
definition and rules, of a NI 43-101---whatless the different Categories, and the very PURPOSE of
the Instrument! They seem CONFUSED with the ounces reported therein and the number of ESTIMATED OUNCES given by Fraser Mac. ETC.
This, in part, could be because of CIBC and their estimate of the # of ounces. People may think that CIBC was 'the winner' in the ounce guessing game---and the other 'guys' are completely out to lunch with their estimates! CIBC made it QUITE CLEAR that their figure was what they thought would be included in the NI 43-101, AND they were basically correct. CIBC also stated that their number was "CONSERVATIVE".
CIBC, it should be noted, is also a BANK.
Fraser Mac., Dalhman Rose, GMP, Industrial Alliance, etc. COULD ALSO BE CORRECT in their statements as well-----because they weren't estimating the NI 43-101 numbers, BUT something ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT!!! Their purpose was to get a future (ONE YEAR's) Price Target.
SO...
STOP IT with all of the "CONFUSION" already!!! CIBC's number compared to the estimates of the
others mentioned above is LIKE "Comparing APPLES to ORANGES". They could BOTH / ALL be ABSOLUTELY Correct in their assessments and estimates!!!!
AND...
ALL of 'them' admit, CLEARLY, that their estimates are ALL----VERY, VERY CONSERVATIVE!!!!
Whilst I'm at it-----Dundee Wealht Management's approach (which I think is BRILLIANT) is something
QUITE DIFFERENT to the other "two approaches"! FOR EXAMPLE----Apple to Oranges estimates-----IE.
Just what is the difference BETWEEN CIBC's NI 43-101included number of ounces NOW, AND, Fraser Mackenzie's number of estimated ounces in roughly SIX Month's TIME ? (Fraser Mac.'s numbers and price target were for ONE YEAR's time out, but that was 'roughly' six months, or so, AGO!!!!)
What, basically, is Fraser Mac. saying??? That is, in other words, just how much is the NI 43-101's ounces really representing, because of the ULTRA CONSERVATIVE definition and rules of the NI 43-101, 'TRANSLATE TO' in their assessment of their estimated number of ounces? IE. because of their interpretation of all of the DRILL RESULTS.
NOTE: Fraser Mac.'s number of estimated ounces (nor their Price Target) HAS CHANGED!!!!! They COULD have revised/changed them now that the revised NI 43-101, BUT THEY DIDN'T!!!
The MATH PART is SIMPLE!!! Fraser Mac.'s estimate DIVIDED BY the total number of ounces actually included and reported in the NI 43-101. (either 7.1 OR 7.5 million ounces, your choice,)
DIVIDED by what?---3.67 million ounces).
THE ANSWER, investment fans, is basically------- TWO to ONE!!!!!!
HEY------------TWO times 3.67 Million Ounces (theNI 43-101 figure) EQUALS 7.34 MILLION OUNCES,
DOES IT NOT????
NOW, I ain't nun Geologist, BUT the Math doesn't LIE!!! ALL of the analysts AREN'T IDIOTS, and with
their STAFFS of accredited EXPERTS, have put in a massive amount of work, and DUE DILIGENCE.
It should ALSO be POINTED out, that IF you USE thenumber of estimated ounces given by GMP, or INDUSTRIALALLIANCE and plug them into my simple equation,THE RESULTANT RATIO FIGURE------IS EVEN HIGHER!!!!
MOREOVER...
One MUST ask oneself IF------Seldom WheneverEwashes, Sprott, Pinetree Capital, Cormark, Can-o-what,
EXCETERA-----ALL OF THE "BIG BOYS" are ABSOLUTE IDIOTS and COMPLETE FOOLS------AS WELL!!!!????
I, for one, don't think so. I think they are FAR BETTER, and more QUALIFIED JUDGES of this THAN
I AM. Surprise, SURPRISE, surprize!!!!!
FWIW, I know, LITTLE, O.K. NOTHING,
NOTORIOUSLY, calling it like I see it, GLTA,
Barn Breath