RE: 45 days for an amended NI43-101 Yes watchmeplz. I wrote this on 8/17/2012 7:49:47 AM | | 407 reads | Post #31393309, but due to this 100 garbage posts everyday, its very difficult to find informative postings, so I post it ones more:
Timeframe for amending an NI43-101 Report
From: https://www.mining-journal.com/reports/special-report-ni-43-101-regulation-update “The amendments to NI 43-101 provide an exemption from the 45-day rule if the mineral resources, mineral reserves or the results of the preliminary economic assessment disclosed by the written disclosure was, among other things, prepared by, or on behalf of, another issuer who holds or previously held an interest in the property and is supported by a technical report filed by the other issuer under NI 43-101.
In these situations, the issuer has 180 days, rather than 45 days, to file a technical report supporting its disclosureof the mineral resources, mineral reserves or the results of the preliminary economic assessment unless suchdisclosure is also contained in a preliminary short-form prospectus, in which case the technical report must befiled by the earlier of 180 days from the date of the disclosure or the date of filing the preliminary short-form prospectus.
This 180-day exemption will not help companies acquiring assets from companies that are not Canadian reporting issuers (for example ASX-listed sellers).”
So, we fixed the timeframe. Regarding Barkerville: If they decide to charge further Peter George to make a NI43-101 compliant Report or a BCSC compliant material change News Release then they have once more a timeframe of 45 days maximum. If they decide to charge another company (e.g. Mintec or Snowden), then the timeframe is normally 180 days.
Now I googled for other companies who made an amended NI43-101 to get an overlook about this timeframe (the list is absolutely uncomplete!, I searched about 1 hour):
|
|
Original NI43-101
|
BCSC intervention
|
Announcement to make an amended report
|
material change report
|
amended NI43-102
|
|
Oro Mining
|
6/1/2012
|
|
|
|
7/12/2012
|
|
Frontier Rare Earths Limited
|
9/28/2010
|
|
|
|
10/29/2010
|
|
Rubicon
|
10/29/2010
|
1/11/2011
|
2/14/2011
|
3/31/2011
|
4/11/2011
|
|
High River
|
6/08/2012
|
|
|
|
7/20/2012
|
|
Augustine Ventures
|
11/1/2011
|
|
|
|
11/25/2011
|
|
Azumah Resources
|
3/12/2012
|
|
|
|
5/3/2012
|
Roughly it took 1 to 1,5 months to release an amended NI43-101 report. Regarding the SP of Rubicon I made a closer look. 3/30/2011 closing was at 4,34$. 3/31/2011 closing was 5,02$ in the following days it went up to 5,51$ a 27% gain despite of the fact, that Rubicon had to decrease the resources from 4 to 3 Mio ounces = minus 25%, but this was BCSC compliant.
What can we expect for the revised NI43-101 Report?
According the Northern Miner Article from critical Brent Cook, Garth Kirkham (Canadian Institut of mining, metallurgy and petroleum) counts with 0,085 ounces/ton (Peter George estimated: 0,116 ounces/ton indicated, 0,189 ounces/ton inferred) If we assume 7,4 mio ounces from the last report we get probably roundabout 4 Mio ounces +/- .This figures come from a man who is a recognized expert ! If BCSC will accept this numbers, we would be very satisfied for it ! The uncertainty would be swept away, the SP could increase, the upcoming Mintec and Snowden Reports will probably also improve the consciousness.
Furthermore I found this: "The cause for the amendment by Rubicon is due to the fact that RBY used a polygonal assessment when the industry prefers a block model approach.." So, we have also an expert disput. Regarding Peter George: I'm not happy with him, for sure. I think he is too self convinced to be on the right side. But he ignores the fact, that the BCSC has the controls, regardless who is right, who is wrong. They made the rules...
Regarding the board: Only 100's of speculation without any background. It is annoying to read 100’s of self repeating posts and Kindergarten posts from board Clowns without any information, to find a post, who really brings News to us. Stop it !! Please !