War of words continues over British Columbia gold project

Stockhouse Editorial
7 Comments| November 28, 2013


The following is an excerpt from Canaccord Genuity's Morning Coffee report.

Shares of Pretium Resources Inc. (TSX: T.PVG, Stock Forum) continued to garner headlines as the war of words between company management and Strathcona Mineral Services continues.

After Pretium released very positive results from the company’s bulk sample program at the Brucejack [project in northern British Columbia], in which 4,215 ounces gold were produced from 8,090 tonnes of ore, Strathcona commented that the results were based on the company’s stumbling on an unknown vein while mining the sample.

Strathcona had also expected 4,000 ounces from the bulk sample, but only because of this lucky find. Strathcona noted that due to such stumblings, which are unreliable, the problem is not the bulk sample but with the rest of the deposit, where Strathcona is certain that the grade is nothing close to 16 grams per tonne.

The war of words started in October when Strathcona withdrew from the project stating that “…there are no valid gold mineral resources at Valley of Kings Zone, and without mineral resources  there can be no mineral reserves and without mineral reserves there can be no basis for a feasibility study.”

It is now squarely in Pretium’s court to prove to the market the Valley of Kings is everything that it promised to be.

Pretium shares were off 0.18% to $5.49 on Thursday, leaving the company with a market cap of $576.7 million, based on 105 million shares outstanding. The stock is down from around $8 in October and trades in a 52-week range of $14.10 and $2.83.


Rate this article
0 stars
v
Usefulness

Clarity

Credibility

Comments

VOKBLVR
This article is just poor journalism. There is no reponse from Pretium as to their position. There is no mention of the conflicting party-Snowdens-a world class and highly respected geological consultancy. The reporte has taken a statement from a dinosaur(who by the way selected the portion of the orebody from which to take the bulk sample) who now says they sampled in the wrong place. After listening to the unsupported rant from Strathcona-why is it up to Pretium to prove the thing they h...
3 stars
November 28, 2013
Rate this comment
4.5 stars
v
Usefulness

Clarity

Credibility

blue0987
I always give credit to written articles that present both sides of a given argument...this article does not. Let me say that many PVG shareholders lost a considerable amount of value after Strathcona came out and announced PVG had no valid gold mineral resources at Valley of Kings. Then after PVG latest announcement that the Bulk Sample Surpasses Target of 4,000 Ounces of Gold, Strathcona comes out and announces that they had also expected 4,000 ounces from the bulk sample, but only because ...
2.5 stars
November 29, 2013
Rate this comment
0 stars
v
Usefulness

Clarity

Credibility

Majormac79
Strathcona Mineral trying to safe face but makes themselves look like an angry child. First they stomp their feet out the door when Snowden and Pretium management choose a different sampling technique, then Strathcona Mineral blow a hissy fit when proven wrong.
4 stars
November 29, 2013
Rate this comment
5 stars
v
Usefulness

Clarity

Credibility

VOKBLVR
This article is just poor journalism. There is no reponse from Pretium as to their position. There is no mention of the conflicting party-Snowdens-a world class and highly respected geological consultancy. The reporte has taken a statement from a dinosaur(who by the way selected the portion of the orebody from which to take the bulk sample) who now says they sampled in the wrong place. After listening to the unsupported rant from Strathcona-why is it up to Pretium to prove the thing they h...
3 stars
November 28, 2013
Rate this comment
5 stars
v
Usefulness

Clarity

Credibility

Gaberlunzie
I'm not convinced that either Strathcona or Snowden show up well. Strathcona should have said 'we have read the Snowden report and do not totally agree with the methodology' and kept their credibility intact. What we are told of the bulk sample results tells us that Snowden underestimated the gold content so the methodology is questionable, even though the results are so good. I've read the Snowden report, something no other contributor here has admitted to. Some of the estim...
2 stars
December 1, 2013
Rate this comment
0 stars
v
Usefulness

Clarity

Credibility

geodcan
workers and visitors to site have seen the veins. reputable core analysts have seen and evaluated the core. the "no gold" statement released by pretium from the correspondence from strathcona has been proven wrong and in fact the bulk sample which imho is a more logical method than a couple of bucketfulls from a crusher. strathcona knew that a comment like that and a resignation would decimate the share price and it rankles of collusion especially with the farq being on the board ...
2.5 stars
November 28, 2013
Rate this comment
5 stars
v
Usefulness

Clarity

Credibility

Gaberlunzie
I'm not convinced that either Strathcona or Snowden show up well. Strathcona should have said 'we have read the Snowden report and do not totally agree with the methodology' and kept their credibility intact. What we are told of the bulk sample results tells us that Snowden underestimated the gold content so the methodology is questionable, even though the results are so good. I've read the Snowden report, something no other contributor here has admitted to. Some of the estim...
2 stars
December 1, 2013
Rate this comment
0 stars
v
Usefulness

Clarity

Credibility

Leave a Message

You must be logged in to access this feature.