RE:RE:Why did we not get the last set of drill results. AnyoneRYU,
We were discussing about the filing of the finalized Technical Report Ni-43-101 a few days ago. This was based on the report from his phone conversation with Philippe B, VP Exploration who said that this will be filed with SEDA soon (before 24 July). This is an usual step to formalize the Technical Report with 45 days following the publication of the result summary in a form of the company NR. Then the Technical Report would become an official document for reference purposed. This is for a normal situation, but I am not sure how it would be handled by the company and SEDAR under our current situation, Special Meeting, court challenge, etc...
>>>We could ask Newrookie if he would be so kind to have a quick conversation with Philippe again for the latest news on this submission of the Technical Report for Orenada (before 24 July?, if not then when).
I just noted that the NR (6 June 2018) is on SEDAR as well as on AZX website, with key results for both the updated RE (2018) and the historical one (2009) along with discussions why the 2018 RE is lower than the 2009 RE. In my opnion, they have listed the main reasons for the differences. Of course, it would be better to read the Technical Report (but we would normally skip through most of the pages and read only the Summary anyway).
For a casual observer, this NR is probably good enough. I will summarize some key points (in other words it would be condensed further) as some take-aways for lay people.
- The 2018 NR used the Whittle pit shell model for the OP portion, but it is more restrictive (constrained) than that used in 2009 (unconstrained), which used all data above the cut-off limit. Cut-off limit for OP was the same for both cases @0.4gpt, but cut-off for UG was increased from 1gpt to 2gpt in isolated blocks (new 43-101 regulation).
- The difference/reduction is not that significant 0.320Moz compared to 0.390Moz (But, EO was saying that the new estimate would be x2 of 0.390Moz, presumably using the same unconstrained model and lower cut-off for UG,, i.e. 0.780Moz, for Orenada. So people was shocked to see an updated RE(2018) of 0.320Moz).
There is some hope for an improvement in a revised RE (it ain't over till the fat lady sings) with the following measures:
- Inclusion of additional data after the cut-off date;
- Inclusion of results from cores that are still sitting at Val d'Or;
- In-fill drilling to bring more data into the model for the resource calculation;
- Exploration potential west of the current drilled area;
- New interpretation of the modelling.
I would urge you to read the 6 June NR, if you have time, for a lot more details than listed above.
https://www.azx.ca/updated-resource-contains-approximately-194500-oz-indicated-at-1-61-gt-gold-and-126300-oz-inferred-at-1-89-gt-gold-from-orenada-zones-2-and-4/
or, if the link does not work, then go to AZX website/news media tab/choose 2018, scroll to the June 6 NR, and Voila.
GH
-------------------------------------
RYUcan wrote:
They delayed the RE and manipulated the results to minimize the RE. Why? I believe they did promised a low sale to the original potential buyer 8mons ago. For what reasons for themselves? Probably shares and position in the new company. Not saying EO isnt to blame for this mess. Either way shareholders will have a chance to vote for any sale. JMO.