RE:New Red Cloud RNC ReportTradeL,
Thanks for the Red Cloud report. Agreed with their general conclusion that the drill results are good and would support their previous assessment. I just have one comment about their presntation of the results, shown in Figures 2 and 3, particularly the results shown in the last column of the Legend, when they show the grade x the true thickness. In fact I cannot blame them, since they just took what RNX showed in the NR. So my comments are equally apply to Mark Selby and Rob Buchanan.
I had some difficulty verifying their presentation. Comments follow. Feel free to pass them along to IR.
- The results are colour-coded and the high grades are given red and shocking pink (the difference are shown well on the computer screen, but you would need to have a good printer to separate the colour out).
- Of the bunch of red and pink dots, WFN-065 would show 39.13 gpt x 3.07m = 120 gpt-m. Noting that the unit for grade is gpt, not just g, since using g is simply not correct. This is sort of being sloppy, or at least people in the company are using "slang" for communication to the outside. The accepted unit for this is gpt-m, and an "acceptable rule" in the industry is that drill results showing a value of 30-40 (gpt-m) would be considered as economical viable. So hole -065 is a good hole.
- Another good hole is WFN-063.
- But, WFN-045 should be given a red dot rather than pink.
- There are more red and pink dots (7 pink dots counted on the computer screen) in the cluster which have not been highlighted. Do they belong to this set of drill results?
Just trying to avoid confusion which may cause negative reaction to a good set of drill results. RNX should get a good geo who can write simple report/IR (using commonly used unit, such as gpt, rather than just grams) for lay people. Also, indicate that what level the company (or the industry) would considered as economical viable. Keep in mind that common investors are not mining experts.
GH11
-------------------------------------