Paul - i sensed that your post was going ny the way-side, so I thought i'd shed a little light...
i live in denver and spoke with Guy last week - a very accessible, amiable fellow, i enjoyed speaking with him. the Trites report, from what i understand, was the first assessment of the capacity of the ore deposit...Guido Paravicini was brought in tho confirm (or refute!) the Trites report...as all have seen, Mr Paravicini's results confirmed the Trites findings (in my opinion, as a geologist/geochemical data analyst) there is not a statistical difference between the two reports - and certainly no statistical significance to Mr Paravicini changing his numbers by a paultry 30,000 ozs. (0.5%). Also, if you will notice Mr. Paravicini took great pains to undergo a very conservative analysis of the potential of the deposit. For example, he estimated the total volume of the ore bearing body at only 30 to 40% of the volume that could have been estimated based on topographic data. As far as the existence of a Trites report - I don't have that information.
Anyway, reported values aside...the nest a critical step is the verification of these reports by another firm. Although they already have data to look over...this firm will have to collect confirmatory samples, check Mr Paravicini's statistical analyses, check the analytical laboratory's QA/QC results and certifications, etc. They (the "third party firm") will have to be extremely careful in their analysis of this deposit. We can't expect this to be turned around quickly. While I want GE to respond quickly to quell all the negative press, I desire a thorough, quality-minded investigation, that will stand on it's own merits.
as always, my opinions only...
toma |
