Dutch Gold Resources Inc. (fka DGRI)

[bulldog21]

Confirmation of NI-43-101 from David Brown Associates. Originally posted by tvmetguy post#17690-

RE: DGRI's January 2010 43-101?
11/27/10
Hide details David Brown David [e-mail]

Send email
Find email Add to contactsTo Mark Taylor
From: David Brown ([e-mail])
Sent: Sat 11/27/10 6:36 PM
To: Mark Taylor ([e-mail])


Mark



I asked the COO of Dutch Gold if I could answer your question. He approved.



The numbers from GEMCOM were as high as about 7.6 Million ounces of Au and Au-equivalent Ag, depending on the cutoff grade. Their work was never finalized, as was clearly stated in the report. However, the work was done and we had the results of their calculations, so we reported them as such. However, we made it clear the work was draft only and never finalized. We also recommended that one of the first tasks for Dutch Gold Resources was to have GEMCOM update their estimation and include all the drill holes. Their estimation only included about 1/3 of all the drill holes on the site. If you inspect the results of the all of the drill holes, as attached as an appendix to the original 43-101, you will see that every drill hole on the site encountered gold from top to bottom. GEMCOM is a very reputable firm and their work is generally accepted without question.



We also checked the basic data GEMCOM used in their work by reviewing a significant number of assays, making sure GEMCOM had copied them correctly into their plotted cross-sections. We then contacted the various laboratories used by Cable Mountain (all were still in business) and reviewed their QA/QC policies. We also reviewed all the laboratories’ chain-of-custody protocols to ensure there was no errors in documenting and transporting the samples or opportunites for corss-contamination.



43-101 rules allow using other people’s work to summarize the physical setting of a mineral exploration or development site. In fact, as an independent third party, if you had done some of the geological or drilling evaluation work, you would be in the position of examining and critiquing your own work. Therefore, it is best if the third-party reviewer has done none of the geological or other work on the site. It keeps you from having conflicts of interest doing the third-party work.



If you have any other questions, do not hesitate to call.







David E. Brown, RG

David Brown & Associates

P.O. Box 87938

Vancouver, WA 98687

360-823-0916

[e-mail]









From: Mark Taylor [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2010 11:31 AM
To: David Brown
Subject: DGRI's January 2010 43-101



DBA,

As someone invested in DGRI, Dutch Royal Gold, I have a question about the 43-101 report you completed for DGRI in January of 2010. The question is you refer to a 1997 GEMCOM report that shows roughly 2.8M ounces of proven and probable gold at DGRI's Basin Gulch Mine and then suggest that may be on the low end of actual gold located in the mine, yet you also state you did not measure or do any testing of the holes that GEMCOM provided. How did you come to this interpretation? Is it because the GEMCOM data appeared to be credible, and when applied over the entire Basin, that this would likely increase the amount of proven and probable gold?

Any information you can provide would be greatly appreciated,

Regards,

Mark J. Taylor