Never mind anybody of doing the math on what the Analyst is saying. I will spell it out in this post and hopefully get my points across.
This analyst is supposed to be a reputable analyst. He should be in a class far above this board because his credentials clearly show that. His products/reports that he publicly puts out are supposed to hold merit and integrity and not mislead investors. He is accepted by the investment community as a proffessional, and his credentials should tell you that.
If you do the math, and really understand what his statement is implying when he speaks then you will arive at a ridiculous number of ounces of gold. The fact that he says that the anomalies contain a high sulfide percentage of "over 1 %", and that that 1% is mostly gold, creates the problem. To have more of one thing, you could split it in two, which will be 0.5% and 0.5%, but, to have more, we have to say that one side is bigger than the other, so to do this, I will assign 0.6% to one side and leave the other side at 0.4 %. Because he says mostly gold. So then when you do the math, you should be using
1% = 10,000 g/t 0.6% of that equals 6000 g/t gold. See the problem?
BOW uses 1g/t in his calculations and cuts that down so far, that in the end he is actually only using 0.29 g/t for the anomaly. If BOW were to use 1 g/t and not scale it, and not use 2.5 for the density, he would have arrived at
351,000,000 ounces of gold.
This reputable analyst is saying in his report that we may have 6000 times that?
See the problem with that and how crazy it is?
Our BOW has done his math properly with our speculation of the anomaly containing only 0.29 g/t gold which equates to approx 102 million ounces of gold. He is most likely too conservative, and you can see why, when you have a reputible analyst saying that there could be over 6000 times that there in the ground.
If someone is reading that report, they might say this is impossible, and chuck the report away, and not invest. But wait, sometimes a persons source of info can be questioned. If he did the proper DD and research before he wrote this report, his work should be credible. But in this instance, it would appear its too far out there, to be credible. But, if he is 1 % correct in his statement, we still have 60 times more gold than what BOW conservatively calculates. So if he got the info from management, just exactly what did management tell him, to arrive at this conclusion?
In another area in that report, he mentions 2 new gold zones that after all the days of DD I have done, am still unable to find that info. Is it a mistake, or did he get that info from management, and that info is correct? If its correct info, then throw that on the pile of other things that we know nothing about. But, then there is another problem, if these conclusions this analyst is making are partially correct, its still saying that we have something of the magnitude, of which the world has never seen. And here our sp is sitting at $2? C,mon, wake up.
A few may call us pumpers and that this is a rah rah board. But if those that do would take the time and do their own DD , they might realize the possibility of this being multiples of what bow guesses and everyone thinks.
Our news has been held back for many months, and thats a fact. And here we are sitting at $2 or so. Whats wrong with this picture when you take every bit that has been learned on this forum and put it into one picture? If nobody here can see that picture now, then it tells me that I just wasted over a year of my time here on this forum.
IMO
