Barkerville Gold Mns Ltd BGMZF

RE: Reason for the email to my BC MLA

[ovis]

mailmancp, You said... "...They(Rubicon) revised their numbers down to only prove them up higher later. "... but it didn't happen that way. PG revised the numbers to include a capped version and then Rubicon hired another outfit to do a pre feasibility and the numbers got revised further down -- the prefeasibility was ball busting conservative. Not a big deal but the numbers for Rubicon are still below the original PG numbers. I expect that the Rubicon numbers may be revised upwards in 2013 once drill results from much deeper are included but I haven't heard any firm plans to that end so that is just speculation on my part. Bottom line, Rubicon definitely has a major deposit with huge potential, has plans to enter production, probably somewhere north of 100K ounces a year in 2014/2015 (my speculation) and probably a 50 year mine life (wild speculation on my part based on Red Lake history). I don't have a Rubicon position but will definitely have one by the time the first financials are due once commerical production starts. I love the Red Lake camp.

 

The BCSC did the right thing w.r.t. BGM. The report August 12 report is available for anyone to view and it is clearly NOT 43-101 compliant. Show that report to any QP today and see if you can find one that says yes that is a compliant report.

 

IMO the future rests largely on the assy results from the twinned holes and of course the Snowden interpretation of the drill core database. If the twinned holes show comparable high grade intercepts, on at least a few of the twinned holes, then youall will be sunning happily in Cuba. If the twinned holes come up as duddes then the future will be more complicanted and I might suggest a February grey hound bus trip to say Red Sucker Lake as an alterantive to Cuba... But that's just me... always seeing both sides.