Fact: BGM Lost More Than 4M Oz Indicated Flintstone,
I trust you will accept as FACT that between June 28, 2012 and August 12, 2012, BGM lost more than 4M oz of indicated resource from the Cow Mountain deposit.
On June 28, 2012 the BGM news release, apprvoed by two QPs, stated
The indicated resources, between the elevations 3,550 feet and 4,550 feet above sea level (town elevation 4,000 feet), estimated by Geoex for the Gold Quartz open pit model on Cow Mountain are 69,039,000 tons with an average grade of 0.154 ounces gold per ton (5.28 grams/T) and 10,626,100 ounces of contained gold
The subsequent technical report, dated August 12, 2012, in the table labelled, COW MOUNTAIN OPEN PIT SUMMARY OF UNCAPPED INDICATED AND INFERRED RESOURCES (in-situ, undiluted, uncut) on page 10 showed an adjusted Indicated resource with 6,605,000 contained ounces.
Difference between Jun28/12 and Aug/12:
I don't think you can argue with those facts. Why you might argue that the combined Inferred and Indicated announced on August 12th was greater than the Indicated from June 28th, such an argue is seriously flawed -- the NI43-101 standards are extremely precise on the point that Measured + Indicated can never be summed with Inferred and reported as a single number. It would be like adding a Yugo to a BMW and saying you have two cars -- clearly a German would never count a Yugo as anything related to a BMW, and rightfully so. Well, in Canada, Measured and Indicated are never ever counted along side of Inferred. One is a BMW and the other is an old Yugo.
Of course you could argue that the BCSC forced BGM to issue a press release on July 11th warning investors to not rely on the June 28th resource estimate. And I of course agree, that did happen. However, the fact on the table remains that
June28th: 10,626,100 ox of Indicated Resource
July12th: zero ounces
August 12th: 6,605,000 of Indicated Resource
Assuming the August 12th numbers are 100% correct, it is therefore clear that for approximately 2 weeks (June 28th to July 12th), Investors were left with a false information equally the loss of more than 4M oz of indicated resource.
Will the BCSC investigate the reason behind such massive misinformation? Will one or both QPs be called to answer? How could such a massive error be made. Investors certainly deserve a detailed explanation based on a BCSC review. This last paragraph is of course my opinion based on the documented facts above.