Is this the kind of post you are talking about?
Please, highlight the bias. It is a factual report, in all respects, IMHO.
"Actually, 43-101 was changed, to allow the use of inferred resources in a PEA. They have to be calculated separately, and there must be the appropriate precautionary language. It was changed to allow companies to show that a mineralized zone might be continuous, even though they hadn't demonstrated it yet with infill drilling.
The real issue is that even though the press release only mentioned indicated resources, the contained tonnage and grade do not match the indicated resources reported in the Resource Estimate.
I posted this on Monday:
'I also compared the RE numbers with those in the PEA preview, released today.
It's hard to directly compare the two sets of data, because they are not reported the same way.
Today's news release gave a life of mine (LOM) tonnage to be milled of 20,927,000 tonnes of ore, grading at 4.05% Cg. That would give contained graphite tonnage at 847,500 tonnes. The graphite product output, though, is reported at 633,636 tonnes, meaning that recovery of the contained graphite is 74.76%.
I went back to the RE, and it gave indicated resources of 977,800 tonnes contained graphite, at 3.89%. That was contained in 25,100,000 tonnes of ore. So, how did the grade go up and the tonnage go down? They had to have increased the low cut off grade.
Table 14-11 of the RE gives a sensitivity analysis to the resource at different cut off grades. At 2% cut-off, the indicated resource is still 914,000 tonnes, higher than the 847,500 tonnes I calculated from the LOM table in today's press release, but the grade is higher than today's value, at 4.41%. The only conclusion I can reach is that the cut-off grade for this economic assessment is now close to 2%, compared to the 0.6% used in the Resource Estimate, but that some ore of higher grade is no longer economic because it is in too small of a volume of rock to be economically recovered.'"
Lar
