Copy of a post on another board-
posted on Jan 22,14 -- 02:58PM
Dear xxxxxxxxxx,
Thank you for your questions. Please see responses provided by management.
Question: Is it correct to assume that the previously announced cost of $6.1 million for year one is the approximate amount of capital that is sought to fund the initial drilling program announced today (24 hours per day in two shifts, 7 days per week, and 365 days per year with one drill)?
Answer: Yes
Question: Is it also correct to assume that drilling can commence when a lesser amount of funds has been secured? E.g., a put under the registered financing equal to $1M, with the expectation/hope that future puts will be conducted at a higher pps?
Answer: Yes, to some degree. But all of our cost basis has been promulgated on a very rapid drill program in order to have a large mine in operation within 7 years from start, at the rate stated. We have used Microsoft Project (an interactive Gantt charting program that projects estimates, and then as the project actual results come in will be adjusted by geologist Gene Rosenlund. Gene used 5,000 line entries for every required resource needed for the designed program based on the parameters of getting a mine into production in seven years. Actual costs and time to completion will be updated daily. Because of the continuous activity and volume of work, the resulting costs stated as “all in” costs to drill a foot of drill hole and do all the processing – is $97/ foot. This is a very low number. Just like buying an apple or a ton of apples, the cost per apple goes down as the volume goes up. If we lower our volume the cost will go up. Thus we are shooting for financing of the $6.1 for the estimated first year drill program to keep costs low and retain potential funders. The reason for this design is that during my funding trip to India and later China, I was told that they would only be interested in funding a grass roots project that would be in production in 7 years. Therefore this is what we designed.
Lastly, when/if drilling commences, should s/h expect rolling announcements as assay results are returned from the lab?
Answer: We will pass it on as soon as practical. However, it is our plan to assay for 64 elements as we have done for our geochemistry. This will result in 6,400 assay results per 1,000 foot hole. We believe that average penetration rate will be in the 200 feet per 12 hour shift so we will drill one 1,000 foot hole about every 3 days including move time. Extrapolating this to a 30 day month, there should be ten 1,000 foot holes including 64,000 assays. We will reduce this data and all the other data that will result from logging the core, by use of computers with software designed for the purpose. But this amount of data unrelated to interpretation will be like drinking from a fire hose – something that should not be done. Further, assays unrelated to compilation into meaningful maps and cross sections and interpretation as to the meaning of the data by qualified mining geologists would be meaningless to the layman. It would be similar to getting the basic data coming out of an MRI machine without the data processing so that the Radiologist (Physician - specialist) can evaluate and make an interpretation and report to the primary Physician as to what the results are and what they mean. Thus, we will periodically summarize our results and discuss them in a meaningful way in news releases so that they will be useful and understandable to the technical and lay public. The test of this is the regulation that we must report anything that will be material to the company when such an even occurs. Simplistically, some reports could come out bimonthly or monthly.
It should be noted that a 1,000 foot hole is used as an example. Drill holes will be of variable depth (all vertical) and will be dependent what is being encountered in the hole, and the holes around each hole. Further, many things influence rate of penetration including hardness of the rock, caving hole conditions, lost circulation, twisted off pipe, and many others. Our estimated rate of penetration results from knowledge from many holes drilled over previous decades both by Liberty geologists and the drill contractor, All of this is subject to change depending on these many factors.
Our objective is to do a careful scientific evaluation of the anomalies that have been identified over many years by the same careful, methodical scientific evaluation. We will report this to the shareholders as the data is interpreted.
AI
