First of all, let me just say that I appreciate the conviction with which many of you post your "technical" responses aimed at putting the so-called bashers in their place. That said, you guys are not geologists and know only enough about the exploration industry to get you into trouble...that much is obvious.
A couple of points on recent posts:
- Narrow vein deposits can be complicated to evaluate, but they are not impossible. Bulk sampling is one way to get good information, but it is an extremely old school approach (afterall, that’s exactly what the Spanish were doing 300 years ago in Central America). Modern methods use a combination of geostatistical analysis and 3D modelling to provide the same information, and with a proven degree of accuracy. Hence, the importance of a good mining software and adequate knowledge on how to use it is critical. I would also point out that up until the CM report, it appears PG was only using the polygonal method for estimates (basically doing it by hand on paper sections), so he appears to be a relative newby to mining software.
- Replacement mineralization, if present at CM, would have been identified and characterised over the areas long history of mining. It is not a new concept as some want you to believe. Because much of the current resource lies in the area of previous mining, there is absolutely no way that this mineralization would not have been missed to the tune of millions of ounces. For all those holding out for all the -1 values being converted to high grade…you may be severely disappointed.
- Watching documentaries on the Discovery channel does not count as due diligence, and does not make you an expert.
- Final point, ever wonder why the only “bashers” on this board are geologists? Or at least have a good knowledge of the industry? Is this not a huge red flag???