Checkmate,
Please stop linking me to the posts of others. I am brave enough to post, and always post, under my own name.
There is a false narrative out there that Cougar didn't send the right drilling rig, and should have sent more.
On the first point it is interesting to note that DNI never actually allege this, but a few posters do. The fact is that to complete our earn-in, an aircore drilling program supplemented by a surface sampling program was all that was required. Whilst aircore will not provide a sample to accurately determine particle size distribution it is perfectly ok for determining graphitic content. In an inferred resource, which is what we were obligated to achieve, particle size distribution can be inferred from trenching. Regardless of this, Cougar intended to take undisturbed samples at various depths using a dry aircore barrel. This would have given greater certainty over particle size distribution throughout the resource. Whether that would have lifted the category of the resource from inferred to indicated would be up to the resource geologist to determine once continuity between drill holes was evaluated, but that is somewhat academic as that was not part of our earn in obligation. Cougar's position on DNI's decision to spend money on a diamond drilling program was made clear in correspondence to DNI when we became aware of their decision.
In respect of your claim that we should have sent more rigs and drillers, you are completely off base. The driller was a seasoned operator capable of running a multi rig program. He was a senior man in our group and more than capable of completing the work within the timeframe. The rig was producing up to 120m per shift but would typically drill an average of 50 or 60 metres due to the difficulty in moving around the area. The issue was not the number of rigs but the number of available days to drill and part of the arbitration proceedings between Cougar and DNI revolve around this issue. Cougar claims that many days were lost due to matters beyond its control, including 42 days when we were told to stand down while DNI negotiated with landholders and 28 days in October when our driller was removed from site by the police following a complaint by DNI, accusing him by name, of illegal conduct.
Cougar's position is that this arrest was unfounded and part of an on going effort by DNI to frustrate Cougar from completing it's earn in on the property. These claims are before the arbitrator.
There is a big focus on the existence of the PE. Cougar's position, also before the arbitrator, is that if this licence was not in place then no mechanised work should have commenced on the property, including drilling.
The PE issue is Cougar's first arguement within the arbitration proceedings that the agreement was prematurely terminated by DNI, with a second line of arguement being that DNI should have provided a further extension for delays beyond our control.
On the PE issue, you are now seeming to agree that it has not been issued. If you think it has - then I would be very interested to see any evidence to support that claim.
Thanks for your question.
