A Few Inaccurate facts in your post.
The facts in your post are helpful in allowing us to determine how you came to your conclusions. Thank you. However, I believe there may be a few inaccuracies or misconceptions that should be explored.
1. Isn't it better to have cores with as much Gold as possible present? The 750-gram sample of the 13-Kg is statistically sufficient to represent the entire crushed core at tolerable error factors. The procedure is sound. It certainly was accepted by the hundreds of analysts and companies interested in Busang prior to Freeport's failure to find Gold.
2. You indicate in several places that the Gold is indicative of placer Gold. Normet categorically denied any placer Gold. I have not seen any evidence anywhere of Placer Gold. Have you, other than supposition?
3. Is Felderhoff a senior Canadian Geologist?
4. I can't answer the infill drilling question but the deposit is so large isn't it reasonable to determine the breadth of the deposit prior to infill drilling?
5. I don't quite understand your comment about "not one mining company has reported results matching Bre-x's so far". However, Barrack and Placer were both freed to give results last week and didn't comment. I think facts from these companies are owed to the public. As far as other mines being similar to Busang, I have read on this thread that there is only one other mine like it - Kelian. So I wouldn't expect results similar to Busang at other mines.
6. As far as Bre-x samples given to independents. I believe the samples given were the 20 cms that were removed from either end of the 2 m cores (10% of the cores). If independents were given only one end (10cms) than in 5% of the samples I would have expected significant Gold to be found. If they were given both ends (20 cms), I would have expected that in 10% of the samples significant Gold would be found. Or in other words between 90% and 95% of the cores given would not have any gold. No wonder they didn't find any.
7. FCX reported no Gold. Did they lose it? That is the question. FCX has not been scrutinized. Why? I don't know if they did or did not lose the Gold, but I would like them to give us the facts of each step in their procedure. With facts I can make an intelligent decision or at least have unbiased, independent, knowledgeable, geologists, metallurgists, and lab experts provide information to me to allow me to make an intelligent decision.
8. The stock is selling for less than 85% of its previous high. Thanks to a premature release of information that FCX said was inconclusive. If it was inconclusive why was it released. If they released it because of the original leak, the leak came from their organization and they are responsible. Just as they are now responsible for giving full details of their procedure. Every step they took, including drilling, crushing, milling, screening, assaying, labs used etc prior to coming out with their no Gold announcement and every step, including the same list as above, that they have taken subsequent to their announcement. If they did not lose the Gold they have nothing to hide.
9. Although I have limitations in understanding the complexities of this entire affair, I believe the facts that you posted do not lead to rigorous deduction. I have tried to give responses to the facts that you have posted and believe others in the thread should also respond if they can provide sound deductive reasoning. Taking the facts presented and giving thorough analysis will help guide us to more accurate conclusions.
10. Freeport could have made a mistake. Freeport is silent. Why do we mistrust Bre-x and not Freeport. I would like the same degree of scrutiny applied to both companies. The sooner the better.
11. Mr. Sherkin's post has been most thought provoking, especially the Hammer Mill theory. Greater exploration of this hypothesis may lead to some valuable information for everybody on this thread. |
