RE: RE: Where Is A few simple facts folks:
1) We do not know the specifics of issue the regulators had. All indications so far suggest that it is not a serious concern (more on this a little further down).
2) It's not that uncommon for regulators to ask for clarity or revisions to documents. It does not necessarily mean there has been a grievous error. The sky is not falling. And anyone who uses ORT's daily share price action as evidence of anything is being foolish.
3) Orbite has not had 3 months to address this. They have had less than a month since the release of the full PEA. And if you have seen this process happen before with other companies, you'll know that dealing with regulators can take of time - they are bureaucrats after all.
4) Any suggestion that Orbite or Genivar is incompent or corrupt given the information we have at this time is completely unfounded. Even if a mistake was made, it is illogical to conclude that Genivar, a world-renowned,award winning engineering firm that's been around for 50 years and has 5000 employees is not credible or competent. That's just complete bullsh*t sorry.
5) Bre-X and Sino-Forest were both frauds and there is absolutely no indication of fraudulent or intentionally misleading information here. When you bring up Bre-X while criticisizing a mining company it's like comparing someone to Hitler. It's a cheap rhetorical tactic meant to smear the name of the company. Do you even know what Bre-X did? They faked their core samples by adding gold from jewelry. Don't even go there.
6) Orbite presented two different scenarios in their PEA. One scenario included REEs and the other didn't. They did this for a reason. The REE scenario is more of a blue sky scenario, while the non-REE scenario is the baseline. We know that the regulators took issue with some aspect of the REE resource and not the baseline scenario, therefore they took issue with something that was not at the core of the PEA. The PEA used inferred resource estimates for the REEs. This is perfectly ok as long as they make a qualifying statement about the accuracy of any projections they make based on the inferred reserves. If you read the PEA you'll notice that they very clearly made a qualifying statement to this effect. There is no indication of any deception, wrong-doing or gross incompetence here. And since the REE component is already acknowledged to be more speculative and uncertain, it's very unlikely that any additional details the regulators require at this point are of earth-shattering importance.