Peter George has been on site with them for the past two years. The president of Barkerville was expecting a large number but the general consensus was they were expecting around 4-5MM oz. Peter George ran the numbers, it came out 10.6 million oz. is what the computer kicked out. So he did the whole calculation over again and it came out with the same number
So if you rerun the numbers again, don't change any of the parameters, you will get the same number. If this was the case, why did all the numbers change from the summary to the actual filed report. Based on what is disclosed in the final report, as i have stated, in my opinion, there are some rather large fundamental issues.
He contacted management and Peter George told management they better be in contact with their attorney. Their attorney told management they had to disclose the number because if they didn't the leakage over the next few weeks waiting for the report would get people nailed on insider trading.
Regulations with regards to trading once you have inside information (for instance, Un-released drill holes, resource estimates, deals in the works, etc), is strictly verboten. Several firms that I am aware of have the assay labs hold all drill results any time the issue options, etc. It would truely be interesting to look at Canadian insider, and see who traded. Based on the date in the Summary release, the company had these numbers as early as Dec. 2011. It is a bit confusing as to the date they stated in report, but...
This was not the answer management wanted - they wanted to wait for the final report. According to the guy I spoke with he sat in on a presentation Peter gave and said he is very comfortable with his number and thinks there is really 81-90 million oz. It was reduced to 65-90 million oz to give a better range.
Virtually no company that wants to be viewed as a responsible (not hype or overly promotional), would include the "potential in a resource 43-101. In particular, they wouldn't put that number in the press headline. Just my opinion, and once again, I can't think of the last time I saw that "Potential" statement by an upper tier Junior.
The IR guy brought up Rubicon and said that because of that Peter applied some form of cap grade - he did not know what it was. But that there is one in place, so ideally that does not happen.
He said Norman Anderson was on the property and spent a full week going over Peter George's methodology in his calculation prior to the computation taking place
Norm Anderson has been a manager for so long (to his credit), that it is unlikely he is up on CIM best practices. Just to do so takes lots of time, plenty of continuing ed, actual practice of modeling etc. I am not putting him down, I am only saying he would not be the best person to be reviewing PG's work. An outside consultant who specializes in this should have been retained to provide both management and the BOD with verification as to the #'s. You even stated, FC was stunned by the #'s. right then, a light bulb should have went off.
He said QR - will begin production in a week, and reminded me that there are 7 past producing mines on their land package, and that they stopped production when gold was at $369 per oz.
The story as the guy told it seemed to make sense. He said they are not happy with Brent Cook as they invited him on site 3 times in the past year, which they understand he is busy but for him then to do a number on them they felt was unfair.
I would strongly suspect that there is much more to this story.
I guess Barkerville and Rubicon's management has gotten very close, on account of using Peter George as their geo for both firms. The guy I talked to said that the head grades that Rubicon is pulling out of their mine is consistent with Peter's original report. I thought that was interesting.