RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Reality of a deposit like thisWAITINGSTILL i WILL RESTATE THIS VERY CLEAR! I am not an expert, I have only an opinion, I have never drafted a 43-101, I have stated this several times on this BB, my comments are purely in responce to those made by one Frank Callahagn, Executive management of BGM. Everyone was told that this report would be so clear that anyone would be able to understand it. WELL, GUESS WHAT, it doesn't meet the cut as far as what my knowledge is with regards to resource reporting. I know, it is very subjective due to the nature of what CIM, THE BCSC and various provincial laws are. BUT, Frank promised a report that would make it clear. In my Opinion ( IMO), the report lacks amny of the items needed to clarify what the upside is to this project.
BGM promissed that they would supply the Twined drill hole data in a press release. Where is it. The statement was as soon as available. It was available for the 43-101, but only one hole was reported.
FC and the board has promoissed transparency... I think reporting the twined holes is material. it was stated in the PR.
In my opinion, creating a geologic model to derive a resource model is extremly important. It is just an opinion, but in my world of project review / investment involvement, it is one thing that I look for when deciding how valuable an estimate of the resource is.
Do me a favor, call Mr. Yin and ask him what kind of errors may be associated with anisotropy directions and magnitude when doing Krig block modeling. Ask him if incorporating a geologic model of the ore bodies identified would have helped delinate a more accurate and true representation of ore relative to mined areas. I am only suggesting that BGM has spent over $100,000,000 on this property, and In my opinion, there must be enough information to create not only a geologic 3D model, but to present it so that it would be clear as to what this thing is all about.
Are you telling me that you don't care to either see a 3D wire frame or 3D solid of the deposit based on a model that uses all this data so that it is clear as to what the upside is?
I am not suggesting that Snowden hid anything. I am suggesting that the report does not meet the comments provided by Frank. Wouldn't you like to see all the twined holes as promoissed? Wouldn't you like to see what has been mined versus what may still exist?
I have reviewed most the links provided on the BGM web site and have only provided my opinion here. My opinion is mine only.
If you would rather sit here and name call, not discuss relative topics, etc... be my guest.
As far as Snowdens Lawyers think.... Well I think I have said that I believe the 1m ozs are present as reported. The only statementy i have made is that I think it will be difficult for the Inf to be converted to ind. Very hard. My comments are about what was promissed and what was delivered by FC. I dont see the details pronissed by management.
Subtle basher... How about just a guy providing opinion. If you don't agree, provide me the details as to what is wrong with my logic and we can move forward. Love to hear why not having a gewologic model wouldn't improve the resource. I would love to heaR WHY not being provided the twin hole data as promissed in the PR has not happened. I would love to hear why not showing the pit outlines on cross sections is valid or important. For that mater, how about the pit outline on the few krig block models they posted. I would love to hear why not showing cross sections on at least 200' intervals (be much happier with 100') is nt valuable.