reply to chilly -- Stockhouse isn't working very well these Yes, Chilly, the facts on the table do appear to suggest that the original geological interpretation of the deposit had influence on subsequent resource estimates.
IMO it is pretty clearly detailed in https://seekingalpha.com/article/3902586-anticipating-goldcorp-2015-full-year-results and it clearly happened in 3 out of 4 instances with the outcome of the 4th instance (Cow Mountain) still to be decided.
Yes, PG, interpretation was tossed in the most recent Rubicon technical report earlier this year. As a result, the resource estimate dropped between 80% and 90%. That is a fact. Just look up the Rubicon TR.
Goldcorp got to pre-production on Cochenour which Goldcorp had bought for $1.5B and then spent $500M or more on development. But in the end, just like at Rubicon the pre-production failed and they had to resort to a reinterpretation of the geology.
Beyond the fact that San Gold failed and went broke, not that much is know about the Hinge zone. But in the end the result wasn't pretty.
Again, get mad, name call if you like (but you'll still be a friend), but the facts are the facts. The PG style of geological interpretation for a nuggety deposit is clearly being rejected based on practical results. Really it is a major FAIL for Data Science. If you had of read the 1,000,000s of posts at Yahoo Rubicon you'd have seen that the PG interpretation was not unique and had a storied track record going back as far as the 80s. But I expect there were some uncontrolled factors that messed up the application of the nuggety model at Cochenour, at Phoenix and at San Gold's Hinge.
So, bottom line, my point is that although others have redone the Cow Mountain PG report (just like GoldCorp and Rubicon redid his reports), the geological interpretation (which data on the table strongly suggests is a fail) is still being used at Cow Mountain. I expect that until there are some reasonable sized and property controlled bulk tests completed at Cow Mountain, the fundamental risk of a huge downgrade in resource estimate is a risk on the table.
Just calling them like I see them....No offense intended. If you and the other long pumpers here want to believe in an geological interpretation that may be seriously flawed, then please be my guest. Why you should be buying the dips, eh :)
chillyballs wrote:
Are you telling me that if Snowden had been the the originator of the 43-101 instead of PG ... they would have been arrived at a completely different result than the one they did...... C'mon, Shake your Figs!!!!