Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Beat The Street With SI Traders -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kidl who wrote (72421)	3/1/2011 11:57:07 AM
From: Boolish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 233859

CLQ synopsis... The latest 43-101 compliant mineral resource was originally announced in October last year. It was prepared and signed off on by a qualified geologist. Whether a resource is big or small, it is either prepared by an individual or a team - it is not at all unusual for a large resource to be prepared by a qualified individual. And this geologist, PhD and P.Geo and all, was fully qualified - she was vetted for CLQ by Bill Roscoe, who wrote the 43-101 rule book. This resource was subsequently reviewed for some banks by independent consultants Micon International, and they signed off on it as well. It was then reviewed by Mitsui & Co., the huge Japanese trading firm, and they could not arrive at the same numbers. They came back to CLQ, and the qualified geologist using the accepted world-class software, using various techniques and assumptions, has not been able to reproduce the original number either. CLQ is now bringing in Roscoe Postles and Associates to review the original work, and either they or some other independent firm will be brought in to build a completely new model to arrive at a fresh resource estimate. This latter work will take several weeks or more. In the meantime, preparations for mining will continue. A few things should be noted. First, the tonnes in question are the 46 million measured and indicated tonnes, not the 57 million inferred tonnes. Second, the final feasibility study released in December envisaged mining a million tonnes for 15 years, so 15 million tonnes. If 15 million of the 46 million tonnes are there in just about the same place, then this mining scenario is still practical. The strip ratio may change slightly, but mining costs were only ever 11% of the project cost, so perhaps the cost per tonne would rise from $2600 to $2700. Third, the historic resource left behind when the mine closed in 1965 was 25 million tonnes; not 43-101 compliant, since there was no such thing at the time, but CLQ has drilled this deposit further, from 150 to 450 meters depth, and in other directions, so one would now expect there to be more lithium, not less. Fourth, note that this is not a drilling or assay problem: there were 107 holes drilled by CLQ, all hit lithium, and there is no question as to assayed grades. The ore has been sampled in three different ways. So it is not that there is no lithium there, simply that the model of this part of the deposit where initial mining is envisaged has come into question, and a new model will have to be run to come up with a new number of tonnes that can be verifiably claimed.