RE: Why the report is great Hecksch,
1. Very few QP's would put core that did not have QA/QC into indicated calculations. I promise you, if Snowden did, their reputation would be highly questioned. I know some QP's will, but they perhaps have plenty of twined holes, a very robust database, etc. to justify using in Inf.
2. Read the report, they did include values below the Pit, unless I misread the press release. The BCSC didn't force them to do things directly. They probably said where is your proof. Does the math / statistics work? Did you look at the cross sections? I think you better understand what the model says before accusing the BCSC. IMO you are completely off base. JMO.
3. CM is defined by current drilling and this resource. How do you know the BCSC has told them what to do on each item? The QP (Snowden) doing the report on CM used CIM practices for the report.
4. It may very well be a reviewed report, but by no means is this an in depth analysis of the CM resource. If you would like to see much more in-depth reports, I can point you to many. I also would disagree, I don't think it is very conservative. The database, the assays, the failure for a QP doing the report to have had the chance to visit throughout the project, etc makes it so the QP has to be prudent. I can show you conservative reporting.
5. Geologic potential numbers used as a basis to invest is for suckers!! Only real drilling, Resource models, etc have real value. I guarantee you, any major would not even take into consideration the number. What they would do, is look at the data available and decide what kind of upside the property has.