No issue with the merit of the property. That's never been a problem. Csm, lerner, parsons, sage, chance, ferguson, etc were all truly and legitimatley independent of srsr mgmt, and all vouched as to the merits.
The geological issues are:
1. Locating the iron pin from the historical estimate, more generally the question of lining up the historical pre utm coordinates grid with the current drilling.
2. That the ore body's fine grain sizes made conventional floatation liberation difficult.
3. That the company's historical patented processes from Lerner are not environmentally friendly by today's standards.
4. The proximity to the lake limits the depth of an open pit based on the historical resource.
Es1 is right that there have been failures of mgmt. To characterize this as shooting fish in a barrel, but not being able to hit one.
The issue to me is the failure to follow the NI standards, which is why they got slapped with the CTO. Trying to pass off a resource as "indicated" with the Archibald report.
What i reread yesterday in that may 20 2008 healdine was an apparent effort in 2008 to say Warren Hawkins report was independent and to apprently try to claim a "reserve" estimate.
To be clear, i believe the resource should be classed as a reserve not a resource based on the already work done. However, the NI rules are what they are, so more confirmation was needed. With the amounts raised, the company should have been able to generate an independent NI compliant resource estimate. Instead, it seems the company tried to side step these issues by attempting to pass off hawkins report as independent and a reserve estimate, present the archibald NI as showing an indicated resource, and go to China as a way to bypass the confirmations required by the NI process.
