Barkerville Gold Mns Ltd BGMZF

RE: PIT MODELLING

[hammer161]

sail1away2 - I  think you are putting too much emphasis on pit modelling as the reason that the report was rejected. The use of a pit to define resources with reasonable potential for economic extraction was not premature - it is often done now even on maiden resource estimates.  Having said that, and with all of the other flaws of PG's report aside, there is nowhere in the report which validates the pit he did use. He just said a pit 3600 feet long, 1000, feet deep and with pit slopes of 55° (very steep under any circumstances). There was no mention of any of the parameters used to determine the pit as there should have been - perhaps his computer program did not have the capability as most others do. As for PG not having enough time to complete his report properly - that is a BS excuse - no one appeared to be rushing him to complete the initial resource was released (all indicated category as I recall) and effectively in the revised version the methodology did not change - only the split between indicated and inferred. He obviously felt he had completed the report - he signed off on it.