Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Eagle Hill Exploration Corporation V.EAG



TSXV:EAG - Post by User

Comment by LTGoldBullon Nov 03, 2011 1:04pm
226 Views
Post# 19206105

RE: RE: RE: Market Cap $85 Million

RE: RE: RE: Market Cap $85 Million

My message to management.

 

Today, you really screwed us in the eyes of the market reporting 699 Koz at a grade of 7.67 g/t and at a cut-off 3.0 g/t! You need to clarify to Investors and the Market re: today’s Resource Estimate NR.

 

The statement, quote “The reporting cut-off grade is based on the assumption that that the Windfall Lake Property gold deposit is an underground narrow vein deposit”

 

Hasn’t our Model changed, from High Grade Vein to Low Grade Bulk Tonnage, underground or from surface? You don’t even mention this.

 

If a Low Grade Bulk tonnage deposit, you could have easily used the Gold Cut-off 1.4 g/t for 998,000 oz at Gold Grade 4.17 g/t or lower to be above 1 Moz.

 

So why didn’t you Headline the lower cut-off grade for this conceptual Low Grade Bulk Tonnage Deposit?

 

Cheers, Mark

Bullboard Posts