RE:What If's - CAUTION Look for CIMM NI 43-101 DesignationsSo what are you saying? I should not believe teevee's estimate of 400-600 million lbs for NXE's deposit, while he alludes to a problem with possible inwater leakage thru the dyke at R780, quoting at the same time being a reason for Rabbit Lake shutting down an open pit, when in reality it was just mined out? And said open pit now used for tailings.
One could easily be suspicious of about a dozens posters here who may even be paid by someone to post all the bashing. They even bash folks who post facts that can be independently verified.
Freedom of speach is wonderful isn't it? stanley wrote: Lurk & Learns:
Previous cautions, not withstanding, the fact remains that the faceless posting on this board might as well have no designation(s) hence NO (aka ZERO) credibility in the eyes of the CNSC.
Recall, the CNSC is the regulator who uses their own QUALIFIED experts to review all applications involving uranium. And the technical work involved in any estimate is done by consultants with depth of experience, all borne out in letters that accompany a RPA PEA or Technical document like Dominion Diamond's or Medowbank's.
Meaning, I recently questioned the validity of an estimate for a project where the analyst is not prepared by a third party independent ENGINEERING firm. This is contrary to the intent of the CIMM NI 43-10.
The issue that I'm referring to is the ability for an analyst or anyone else for that matter to post an unqualified resource number. IMHO, we're dealing with a very "grey area" or slippery slope.
No one should be able to post a resource number/estimate without it being qualified and heavily footnoted. Especially if drawings (cartoons) done by the same company are heavily slanted in one direction. Meaning, unless an analyst is prepared to cite the designations of the preparers of their resource estimate IMHO we're dealing with estimates with ZERO level of confidence/reliability.
The proble with said estimate include:
1. There is a resource number; but the mining method will have a significant bearing on the recovery of the resource.
2. Also there is the FACT that a well designed full feasibility to production plan for a mill circuit will capture any pit water for use as process water, in this way minimizing the project footprint by reducing the use of any new/fresh water intake.
As an additional (bonus) kicker, the uranium values contained in said (acidic) pit water might even be "pregnant". Some ISR mines actually have this as the cornerstone/foundation of their business model.
Thus FCU is entering a phase in the mining cycle where the attempted robbery has been foiled by management's decision to call the bluff of the perputrators. This defence was very far reaching, using Kingsdale & Blake Cassels. Not sure why this campaign of misinformation is being waged; but it is what it is. Probable learn more at or after the AGM.
In conclusion: It is my personal opinion that any ore reserve estimate of any kind must be in accordance with CIMM NI 43-101 guidelines. Any estimates without any input from third party independent professionals is an attempt to make a mockery of the hard work of the CIMM and is to the detriement of the small shareholder and as such cannot be relied upon.
BWDIK?
DYODD - GLAP
Cheers
Stanley