Fission Uranium Corp T.FCU

RE:RE:RE:RE:Did NXE dump SRK

[sudzie191]

Well I certainloy didn't mean that the software was faulty. Rather more alarming for all is that the methodology of using the whatever software, inputting to that software, following 43-101 rules, supervision, peer review, approval, and also supervision and review by Rubicon.

Just because someone uses a consultant, doesn't mean they will do everything correct, as I found out many times with many engineering projects.

If you are Rubicon management, you make dam sure whether its SRK, RPA, or whomever that they are doing work correctly. 

shadeson wrote:
I was not contradicting myself. When I refered to modeling software I was responding to Sudzies question that sounded like he doubted the SRK computer models. My point was that if the same modeling inputs (factual and interpreted) are used in multiple software or by different consultants the outcome should be more or less the same, so software shouldn't be to blame if it was used correctly.

Conservative interpretation could have prevented the Rubicon fiasco. The interpretation part of resource modeling is the most subjective and therefore often controversial especially when based on limited drillhole information.