RE:Bug Mikey46, While many of us here appreciate good discussion I am sure I am not the only one that is not in favor of your outlandish lies. We all know that a 43-101 does not sell aggregate. That is why HBK inked a deal with a company that can. Furthermore, you can rest assured that the company AMC has done thier due diligence. That would include knowing the product that they are selling. If the product was not suitable for sale they would not have entered any form of deal with HBK.
HBK did ship a barge load of aggregate to Rupter and as I understand it there have been tests done on it but that is the extent of the information. These companies have no reason to contact HBK with thier test results. Typically, when a company pays for test results they own the results and do not give them away for free to anyone - not even you!
You may have been to swamp point, it was suggested here that you did work for HBK at one point and got fired. Perhaps that is why you are here reporting lies?
Now, with respect to Ascott, you seem proud that they got the project up and running. I don;t follow Ascott but I will take your word for it. It seems to me that Ascott being operation is simply a vote of confidence in the quality of product in HBK's pitt. They are after all sitting on the same desposit material! So woudl you care to explain how 1 company has trash and the other has high quality when they share a deposit? Your input here would be greatly appreciated.
Forthermore, I will point out that the PEA and the 43-101 do indeed report on the quality of the aggregates. I did not take the time to delve fully into teh subject matter because I have read it previously and done feel like doing your due diligence for you. However, I did take a quick glance and have found that you are indeed telling lies when you report that most of the rocks can be crushed by hand. This excerpt is directly from the PEA and you will see that with proper sizing and grading they do indeed have a high quality product.
"Petrographic Analysis PCAC (now HRL) engaged Levelton Consultants Ltd to conduct petrographic analysis of the bulk samples from five test pit locations in December 2005. The purpose of the petrographic testing procedure was to determine whether selective screening and crushing would improve the quality of aggregate material. Petrographic Number (PN) calculations for the aggregate material were determined for both a 25 mm material crush and a 12.5 mm material crush. For the purposes of petrographic analysis, representative samples were taken from Test Pits #1, #2, #3, and #5 and were subsequently combined to make up a test sample. The petrographic analyses showed that the aggregate in the bulk samples from the Swamp Point North is composed of rock types that outcrop to the north and east of the aggregate source area. Tectonic plate collisions, volcanic eruptions, and igneous intrusion have created a mixture of many rock types over a short area.
Most of the rock has been altered by heat and pressure from intrusion of the granodiorite rock that is prevalent in the area and
makes up a significant portion of this aggregate (~45%). Most of the
altered rock is durable and strong but a small portion of it is weak. Highly metamorphosed igneous rock called orthogneiss is very prevalent in this aggregate source (~22%). It is likely that its source is the contact zone between older gabbro and the younger intrusive granodiorite. The aggregate made from this rock type is dark coloured and durable. Fine grained volcanics and intrusives ranged from the Hazelton Group Basalt to Andesite and Felsite rock which was generally strong and un-weathered. Selective screening and crushing did not significantly affect the proportion of these rock types in the aggregate. A small portion of weathered volcanic rock remained in the crushed product. Granodiorite was a significant proportion of the un-crushed samples. It is coarse grained and varies from strong and durable to easily broken by hand. Moderately high proportions of biotite mica affected the strength of some of the particles. Crushing and screening reduced the proportion of Granodiorite in the samples by shattering the weaker rock into sizes smaller than 4.75 mm. Medium grade metamorphic rock described generally as phyllite was the other significant poor quality rock in the original (un-crushed) samples.
Crushing greatly reduced the amount of poor quality phyllite, particularly in the coarse gravel portions. "
mickey46 wrote: You can't sell aggregate with a 43-101 . All that says is that there is a pile of sandy gravel but it does not say that it meets concrete specs As for the barge load that was shipped to Rupert why havent we heard anything more about how great it was. I hear that it was way off spec.. I have been to Swamp point a few times and I was not impressed with the amount of rotten rocks that you could crush by hand , but thank you shareholders for the free helicopter rides..I also said that we could get Ascott's pit up and running in about a month, you said that was not possible. As for your PEA it is a joke I worked with most of the people who gave you prices..