OTCQX:SREMF - Post by User
Comment by
throwinupon Mar 17, 2011 6:40pm
306 Views
Post# 18301757
RE: RE: CLQ articles ...
RE: RE: CLQ articles ...
Hate to be a stick in your wheel 'CLQ'......but I believe that your post is a work of imagination and totally unrelated to fact.
You gave us quite a dissertation on your version of values and then stated.....
I didn't read all those reports, or maybe diagonal, so I could be terribly wrong with my 40% increase claim, but it's worth a debate if I'm right.
Mightn't you be infinitely wise to read all those reports.....before you misrepresent them ? And you are not right...so it's definitely not worth the debate. I've no idea how you picked the 'inferred' value out of the pack as the area of doubt.
You might want to pay attention to little words like 'tonnage' as opposed to 'grade'...and the relative changes/increases to same ...and not confuse one with the other.
Then.... you might be best to acquaint yourself with 'measured'...'indicated'..'inferred'.....
the relevance and standing of each......then 'proven' and 'probable' might be relevant to get you to 'total reserve'.
Then it might be relevant for you to note what values CLQ used in their calculations for theiir potential 'mining operations'.....and I'll give you a hint.....the 'inferred' resource was totally non-relevant.
Rather than debate the relevance of 'inferred'...here's the actual CIM definition...
Due to the uncertainty that may be attached to Inferred Mineral Resources, it cannot be assumed that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource will be upgraded to an Indicated or Measured Mineral Resource as a result of continued exploration. Confidence in the estimate is insufficient to allow the meaningful application of technical and economic parameters or to enable an evaluation of economic viability worthy of public disclosure. Inferred Mineral Resources must be excluded from estimates forming the basis of feasibility or other economic studies.