My family has mine operating experience as well, but that is not from where I draw my experience and knowledge. Mine is purely professional, since I deal with these matters on a daily basis.
Regardless, my credentials should not matter. The facts do. If you have questions regarding the CIM regulations, feel free to contact CIM yourself. As I said before, it isn't the computer model that is the problem, but the information they plugged into it. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the actual process of mineral estimation and legal requirements therein. Extrapolating a drill hole out hundreds of feet, much less 800 feet, is impossible. Even a novice can figure that out. Heck, why stop at 800 feet? Why doesn't Dutch Gold go out a mile? Two miles? All the way to the Idaho border! That would be hundreds of millions of ounces! Where do you draw the line? Brown, the author of the so-called "NI 43-101 Report" knows that, which is why he limited his current estimates to just 20 feet for "proven" and 60 feet for "probable". Even that is likely too optimistic, as there is not enough supporting data in the report to support the "proven" or "probable" classifications in this case. Or, maybe it is also missing from the report. Just like the vitally important drill hole details in Appendix III.
You still have not addressed the remainder of my original post. Why doesn't Dutch Gold provide full disclosure on their drilling? If they are so professional as you assert, why don't they conduct their affairs in a professional manner? Why did they violate SEC regulations by filing a partial report? And, if the information is available, why did they not correct their error and refile the missing information? What are they trying to hide?
And why didn't they refile the report with the missing Appendix A? Why did they ignore their regulatory duty to issue the full report to the public? Again, what are they trying to hide?
AI
