Well you keep changing the rules... First it was dependant only upon financing, now you seem to think not...
So your statement now is: "If the N-S veins constitute a "100% change in a mineral resource or mineral reserve" ... then they must be reported on by an independent qualified person.
FWIW, I certainly am not confident the identification of a N-S vein would constitute a 100% change. The Ivanhoe property currently has 1M measured/inferred ounces. The likelihood of a now identified N-S vein adding another 1M ounces (i.e. 100% change) is not a high probability. Further, the drill holes of said N-S vein are already part of existing GBG drill results included in the East-West veins (i.e. Clementine/Gwenivieve veins).
FWIW, I doubt if Hecla or its geologists can be considered "independent qualified person" under the rules since HL owns 50% of the Ivanhoe joint venture and GBG and HL both have cross-ownership of each others shares. I believe HL ownership of GBG shares AND HL 50% ownership in the Ivanhoe joint venture would make Hecla and its geologists NOT independent.
You sure are a stickler on these 43-101 rules... I guess you will now come back and re-define "100% change"... Then I will come back with a "Clintonesque" statement on what the definition of is, is. Then you will come back with "Supreme Courtesque" language of knowing pornography when you see it...
