Argex Titanium Inc. ARGEF

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Comparable deposit

[canada7]

Michael Dehn told me that he insisted that 40% iron cut-off himself, and advised MetChem to do so. He may have told different stories to different people as people told me via emails this weekend that MetChem insisted on doing that, People can ask him on this at AGM next week.
Are you telling me that Prophecy Resources (now Prophecy Coal) did not know which metals to pursue? Did you ever read their PR on 43-101 before you post? Did you see the title is  "Prophecy Reports Inferred Resource of 259 Million Lbs of Vanadium at Titan Deposit in Ontario", which metals were they pursuing?
Because they have > 40% iron is NOT a valid reason for using it as a cut-off. So, they surely have a small section with 45% iron, why not use 45%? Try to get resource estimate on 45%. They surely have > 30% iron, why not use that? They surely have > 25% iron too, why not use that? 
For 15% Fe with a recent valuation, try Champion Minerals, note that it used 15% for resource estimation, but 10% iron for PEA.
Using > 40% iron simply broke Michael's own promise that historical resources will be met. This is a credibility problem as JDMC said. Michael is the resident geologist of RGX, and he could not figure out only 57% of historical resources will be available??????  Yet, he openly told every one that historical resources will be met, do you feel strange? Off by 43%? Remember that he said every fund in Canada will own RGX? With 44M tonnes? Had he not said anything like those, he is OK,but he did as the CEO of RGX.  
If 43-101 uses 30% iron cut off, will the tonnage be closer to the historical resources? If so, why not? I asked for a series of resource estimation, in addition to the 44M tonnes using 40% iron cut off, why not? Can any one give me a really good reason why not give us a series of resources estimation other than 44M tonnes with 40% iron as cut off?