Ok so your in the camp that mining 1000's of tons of gravel adjacent to these sections gives you no idea of how many ounces of gold might be there. I guess you think a few random holes drilled would give a better estimate?
Not sure how you come to that conclusion. Do you have some examples of where an SEC approved provable reserve study was more accurate than mining half the gravel next to this?
Also can you explain to me how NBRI would be better off spending millions to go your route and ignore the volumes of information from actual mining in this specific location?
I just can't grasp how it would be better to spend more money to double verify what we already know.
Find just one credible geologist that would waste their time and money drilling down into river beds to try to prove the reserves when the mine shaft that leads to the river bed channels is already there and the river channels are accessible.
That's the fact you've not recognized. Decisions to comply with traditional approaches to exploration of lands without existing mine tunnels are totally different than when the tunnels are there.
Also, the extra costs for placer deep mining versus near surface are the costs of those tunnels to get access to the richer deposits. Those costs are already behind us. Not too many people have been panning down inside tunnels; placer mining in surface areas is generally processing some soils that have already been tossed by earlier searches.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
