March 07, 2011
– Comments (11) |
RELATED TICKERS: RBYCF
Anyone heard of any new information concerning the amendment RBY has to do with its 43-101?
Nothing yet. I have a call in, and will let you know if I can gather any helpful intelligence. :P
Thanks Chris!!! I was hoping to hear from you on this!!!
Here is my response from IR VP Bill Cavalluzzo:
Hello Christopher,My best guess is that we will re-file our NI 43-101 technical report within two weeks and hopefully this will bring the BCSC matter to a conclusion. I am at the PDAC conference but will call you tomorrow.Bill
Thanks Sinch!!! I look forward to your review of the situation. I just sold a significant portion of my NLY investment and would like to add to my GPL and RBY, but will wait until your review...
you da man!!
Hey, I just got off the phone with Bill. He seems like a straight-shooter, and I appreciated him taking time out during the PDAC conference to help ease my concerns about the likely amendment to the F2 technical report.
Unfortunately, our conversation was off the record, so I can not deal in specifics of our conversation. What I will say is that I feel reassured about the likely downside limit to the scale of any potential resource reduction. Have another look at the company's own press releases regarding modeling methodologies employed.
OK, thanks for the update Sinch! When you mention "modeling resource methods", are you referring to their Titan 24 survery technology or are you referring me to the 43-101 they orignally sbumitted earlier this year? If you can't respons due to the off-record conversation, I totally understand. Then again, if you can't respond becuase you are Sincha dn ahve a plethora of mining companies to juggle at once, I understand. Regardless, your words are encouraging and I'll do some more DD.
Oh, would you do a write up in the future when things become more transparable?
Polygonal Resource calculation
Source assay data were audited by a third party consulting firm (IoGlobal) specializing in data management and QA/QC analysis and composite intervals were calculated utilizing a minimum three and also a five gram cut-off and minimum 10 gram times metre product for all F2 system data to July 31, 2010. No top cut was applied to the data because, in the opinion of Geoex there is insufficient geostatistical data to properly determine an accurate top cut value at this time. The X, Y and Z centroid points were calculated and horizontal thickness for each composite interval was calculated utilizing a set of east-west cross sections (local mine grid). The composite intervals were classified by geological unit and centroid points for each composite interval were plotted on long sections for each geological domain utilizing AMine software. Individual zones were then interpreted in AMine.
The interpretation is largely based on a series of detailed cross sections confirming geological continuity vertically down dip and along strike (mine grid north-south). Polygons were plotted on long sections for each sub zone with ellipse parameters for the inferred resource of 75 metre vertical radius and 37.5 metre horizontal radius. Polygons were clipped where overlapping, clipped where the claim boundary and 15 metres below where the lake bottom surface was contacted. Polygon areas were calculated for each centroid point, horizontal thickness was applied to determine the volume, a specific gravity ("SG") of 2.85 g/cm3 was applied, being derived from the average SG in preliminary metallurgical studies (see news release dated October 19, 2010). The volume of each polygon was calculated and assigned a gold grade. The sum of the polygons constitutes the inferred resource.
Block Model calculation
In addition to the polygonal resource calculation, as a means of validating the inferred resource estimate by an independent method, a block model was calculated utilizing Surpac software resulting in 5,830,000 tonnes, 3,210,000 ounces at 17.2 g/t or 0.50 opt. The block model results are within 6.7% of the tonnage, 17.1% of the contained ounces and 24.9% of the grade of the polygonal estimate (6,200,000 tonnes, 4,007,000 ounces at 20.1g/t gold or 0.59 opt). While Geoex does not consider the block model the most appropriate method for this type of deposit, the results are considered to provide strong supporting validation for the preferred polygonal estimate reported above. It should be noted that the block model results do not differ significantly regardless of whether a northeast (East Bay trend) or northwest (F2 trend) oriented search ellipse is used in the block model.
Data were audited prior to completion of the block model. For this inferred resource estimate, the data were treated as one domain. Assay data were composited at 1.0 metre intervals (no top cut was applied) and variogram analysis was completed. Two times the variogram range was utilized for oriented search ellipse parameters (list parameters) for the inferred resource calculation. A block size of 2m (E-W) by 4m (N-S) by 12m (vertical) was selected through an optimization process. Data were constrained by the lake bottom surface, the claim boundary and a western boundary was included to exclude any unrelated drilling carried out prior to February 2008. A SG of 2.85 g/cm3 was utilized.
Rubicon is a well-funded exploration and development company, focused on exploring and developing its high-grade gold discovery at its Phoenix Project in Red Lake, Ontario. Rubicon controls over 100 square miles of prime exploration ground in the prolific Red Lake gold district of Ontario which hosts Goldcorp's high-grade, world class Red Lake Mine.
I just downloaded their 43-101 from jan and will re-read through that in hopes of finding info on their modeling methods. If you peruse this thread and see I am on the wrong path, would you kindly let me know merely by saying I'm barking up the wrong tree? Otherwise, I'll return after my reading
Thanks for the information!!! I must have posted my last thread when you were typing yours about the block model. After having read what you provided, I can only assume that the red flags prompting a resubmission of the 43-101 have to do with the fact that the block model was determiened to not be the best model for calculation. But, if Geoex beleived this, then why did they do it anyways? As a 3rd party group, shouldn't they choose the right model regardless of what the customer wants?
It is reassuring that the data from the block model supports the polygonal resource calculation.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see what model they end up reporting in the revised 43-101 and the numbers they come up with.
Thanks Sinch for all your help in this!! I know you're busy with the ongoings of many companies so I do appreciate your help!
The headline resource total was based off the Polygonal model. They calculated resources using both models.
I've given all the clues that I can based upon an off-the-record conversation. :)
Thanks Sivlerminer/Sinchi for the clues and such........I guess if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it is in all likelyhood a duck. So, I guess its only a matter of time before RBY share prices rise in value....tally ho!