In order to incorporate the 2011 results in the feasibility study we would need to complete an updated resource estimate, and a modified mine plan. That could take up to six months to complete, I do not think that the value attributed to the 2011 drill results would not be lost if they are not included in the feasibility study

So they do need to have an updated RE in order to include the results in the Feasibility? That means in order to incorporate the 2010 results it is necessary to have the RE2 first.

I remain confused about this because I am convinced this is the way it has to happen. The December 12 news release states: "Pursuant to National Instrument 43-101 and its companion policies; until the feasibility study is completed, there are no current mineral reserves estimated for the Schaft Creek deposit." So that would seem to imply we need to have an RE then a Feasibility. Doesn't it?

So in trying to read the last sentence with a triple-negative, he is saying that he doesn't think the 2011 drill results would be lost if they were not included in the feasibility. (I'm pretty sure that is not what he is actually saying, but I suspect that is what he means.)