RE: It''''s Interesting isn''''t itcadomin,
Sorry I was a bit late getting back to you - was busy watching the volume and price action in a company with some good drilling results - and of course one where the investors know that the objective will be to keep shareholders informed with regular NI43-101 reporting - in case you're not aware that's the established standard for providing shareholders with an independent resource valuation.
Anyway, back to your essay on how uninformed one person can be on mining matters. The ISM NI43-101 from last year, that you claim proves up reserves, does nothing of the kind. It refers to information that is available elsewhere that is not up to current standards. This is of some information - but you don't need a 43-101 to get a rundown on old mining records - you can go to the records. To say that this is the same as the 43-101's that LBE has done, and is continuing to do is a fallacy. The 43-101's that LBE has released and will release three more times this year, gives an independent professional opinion on the measured, indicated and inferred tonnage of the ore bodies, using current accepted practices for doing so. The one on Redstone, which is an interim report comprising 89 pages of data compiled by an expert. ISM has never reported on any Langmuir property on this basis, they have paid twice to have report done by a PR firm, that included reproduction of various information from the public record and a one or two page mathematical exercise by a CFA that magically puts a dollar value on the deposit. The last time this was done, the CFA came up with an opinion that ISM was worth about 40% of what FNX is worth - this is laughable, actually ludicrous.
Now for your comments on criticism of the Langmuir properties. If you paid attention to the criticism, you will note that it was not a general criticism of all ISM Langmuir properties. L1 was not commented upon other than the fact that if it has been defined by adequate drilling, why not release a 43-101. L2 was commented upon as to explain to some that the mine access is on a LBE claim, and that there are some restrictions that will affect ISM as to access to their ore due to restrictions around boundary lines. The other critical comment relates to the deposits that cheerleaders identify as valuable pit mining candidates, but fail to recognize the economical impact of recovering Ni from low grade ore.
The critics are not applying different standards to LBE reporting and ISM reporting. The LBE data has been, and continues to be disclosed under a standard that has yet to be applied even once to ISM Langmuir properties. Sure the LBE supporters might get a little excited by 2% plus grades at a recently acquired site, that is still open east, west and at depth, and that now indicates it will be their third mine. And maybe it does seem like a bigger event than three results form ISM with marginally economical grades. But remember too, that some of this is "what goes around comes around" - with all the taunts from ISM supporters of having a mill and no nickel.
Anyway cadomin, I must say that it is fitting that you have come out of the closet and taken on the role of being an official rhinestone mineboy and ISM cheerleader. The blunder of multiplying core length by true width will be forgotten and foregiven by your fellow cheerleaders. You will be welcomed as a mining expert with open arms, as long as you say nice things about ISM, even if they are ludicrous. I think its a good move to give up that farce of pretending to be a disgruntled LBE shareholder - you weren't really putting on a believable act - it was quite an amateurish, transparent performance.
Well so long cad, better get back to checking the ticker. The reaction to those LBE drilling results looks like its had some volume and legs. Want to be there watching if we hit the top ten gainers!