Sagey I posted your post on stockhouse for some other opinions, I hope you don't mind, a fellow poster named Buckshot has invited you over for a reserve discussion. here is his response to your post, I am interested on where U-2 differ:
Tanks for nuttin! <g>
Invitation. Thanks, but no thanks.
--------------------------------------------------------
dThe author comes off fairly intelligently but I don't agree with most of what he's posted.
Duuh, duh du, slobber slobber, eerrrrrrrp. yuz gotz wey tu hi an opinyon of me,mmem,me.
"Well...., not quite, they actually announced the results from three holes, and one sucked, but they didn't want you to know that. Dissapointing bs from a company that has been pretty upfront, as far as I can tell, to date."
I'm not sure what he is saying here. At first I assumed he was talking about hole 94. 94 was drilled using one of the new deep drills. It is listed under the assays pending section of the release. Obviously the big rigs take a lot longer to complete a hole. Just look at the picture here to put the length of it in perspective and remeber the holes are numbered when drilling them starts NOT when sawed and shipped for assays. Please ask him which hole we should be looking for.
aurelian.ca
Hole 93, part of a 3 hole group that are all directly on trend from FDN and all duds, less than 1 km from the southern end of FDN (700m), and taken as a whole represent important stepouts from the FDN. 700 m is less than the known strike length of FDN (1100m), I consider that close condsidering the large scale of FDN. Just my opinion.
"1) The two good holes announced are a mild plus, and will add some ounces to my resource model on 3600N. This also suggests that some ounces might be added higher up on line 3700 N. Good news, but only a small potential addition to the resource."
A mild plus??? I can see a bit where he is coming from here I suppose, as I have always assumed the gold would run throught the box of each cross-section- but this is proof. Proof that takes the "speculating" out of the equation. See the cross section here, use a ruler, I'm being extremely conservative in saying 250m deep and 100m wide in my "back of the envelope" calculations. Also, why does the author only think the gold will only show on the top right of the box on line s 3600 and 3700??? Why is he inferring success on 3700 and not 3800, 3500, 3400, 3300, 3200, 3100 and 3300??? Just doesn't make sense. I still assume it will be found in this spot on all of the other lines just as it was found on line 3600, and why shouldn't I?
aurelian.ca
I was a little generous with current model (pre 2/22 PR) and had already extended it up into part of the area in which the two new holes on 3600N tested, so it will not be a big addition of ounces in my model. (It is already largely accounted for in my current model)
The way I have interpreted the sections, there looks like there is very little potential for hitting anything substantial up high in the sections south of 3600N. Could very well be wrong, but that is my best current guess. Hope I am wrong.
"2) Hole 94 was mentioned but no forward guidance given. This is scissors hole above previously announce hole 90, section 2800 N, that had some lengthy intersections of near 1.5 g/t stuff. In the past, lack of forward guidance on visual indications of mineralisation have meant duds. Let's hope this time was just an oversight."
THIS IS NOT A SCISSOR HOLE. It is clearly drilled from the same west to east orientation as hole 90. Given that the author does not know what a scissor hole is, I don't know how much credibility should be given to him in the first place.:
aurelian.ca
FDN is clearly weakening here, so there will not be any visible gold...what guidance is the author hoping for? Also when you look at the system it seems to be moving east, so there is still a good chance that by moving the rig east we will pick it up again at depth.
Oops, sorrry, du rong werd. ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss, that's the sound of my credibility leaking. Oh my kingdom, my kingdom for a werd. Sheeesh, give me a break, will ya?
Hmmm, if you haven't noticed, it has been very easy to predict that a hole would be good or not from PR's previous to the one where the actual assays for those same holes were announced. This guidance has been given by ARU in the form of statements such as "moderate" or "strong" veining or stockwork or "visible gold" noted over such and such intervals, and wallah, a miracle!. If you go back through my posts you will see that they were largely spot on. This is not any great shakes on my part, it's just that ARU made it easy by giving us all the clues, with a wink of course, they can't come out and say "jeeez, loooks sooooo spaarrrkly so its gonna be an orrrrrrre hole.
I agree with pretty much of the rest. Unless it is pinching here we are now getting to the boundaries of this deposit it would seem. That said these boundaries are showing me 15m ounces of high grade gold and thats NOT including chasing these vein structures to the south (see giudence on line 2700) and the thinner high grade zones found at the bottom of the cross-sections they've on all of the lines above 3000 to 3900). I would really like to see this authors current resource calculation and if smaller than mine, I would like to see how he arrived at it..
How are they showing you? At least I describe it. I describe my method on this board. There are lots of folks out there who are drawing a big box of uniform L, W and H, and assigning a uniform grade to it, and Eureka! The envelope or the paper bag or some such. Well geology doesn't usually work that way. The data available beckons, beckons (demands?) much more of us. Ooops, sorrry, my sad; that was just the voices in my head. I look at each section in relative detail, assigning multiple grade/blocks and projecting the results 50 m N and S. For example, my model of 3300 N has 11 grade blocks of widely varying sizes and grades assigned to them. I haven't seen anyone come up with anything similar, that I know of. I'm sure they are out there and would love to see their results for comparison. Can't see even close to 15 m ozs yet as currently indicated by drill data using what I consider a reasonable cut-off grade (more or less 1.5-2 g/t) Our opinions differ, so what else is new. Only the drill will tell.
Is this to be the new spin once the geo-politcal card is played- "yeah Ecuador is ok, but Aurelian only has 15m ounces"?
Huuh? sorry, that one goes right over my flat head.
Don't forget that Aurelian best prospect before FDN was discovered was El Tigre. They were working their way to it when they stopped at the lesser target, which became FDN, and hit it with a blind shot. So anyone that thinks the drilling upside is gone when our 15+m are defined here better think twice. Like the miners say "the best place to find a gold mine is beside a gold mine.
"best place to find a gold mine is beside a gold mine" - couldn't agree more, have never said differently. Potential is there for 15 m ozs and more, no doubt. If wishes were.........?
Regards,
Buck
-------------------------------------------------------------
His next post:
LOL...ok, the missing hole is number 93 I guess.
The reporting is consistant with the way Las Arena's was reported. They are reporting FDN assays in these releases. When a hole is drilled 800m away or 2km away as holes at the ones at Las Arenas were, I hardly call it BS to mention them as an after thought. They were simply testing a theory that the structure did not run into Bonza-Las Penas, set up a small rig to the east of that structure and poked some holes down which came back blank. Even if they hit, they would have to be mentioned seperatly as 800m of unexplored land would lie in between.
The hole is about 700 m S of line 2800 N, the southernmost drill indicated mineralisation at FDN , see comments above. We differ in opinion, so what else is new. In my opinion you do some interesting mental gymnastics to justify their little coverup.
My conclusion is that the author of that piece is hoping to grab himself some cheap shares by creating some confusion. Patrick and the Aurelian team have been as forthcoming as I have ever seen and I hold them in the highest regard. I don't see how you could make that comment about testing BLP with 93, they were completely off that structure as far as I can see
My posting history shows that I think ARU is quite undervalued. I think these PR results overall, including forward guidance, are mildly dissapointing. As I have stated before, I am perhaps recklessly overweight in ARU and generally optimistic going forward. No more room in my account, cheaper or not. Believe that or not, I don't really give a dieuxce. |
