Re: Called and spoke to Cathy
in response to
by
posted on
Mar 04, 2013 03:00PM
CUU own 25% Schaft Creek: proven/probable min. reserves/940.8m tonnes = 0.27% copper, 0.19 g/t gold, 0.018% moly and 1.72 g/t silver containing: 5.6b lbs copper, 5.8m ounces gold, 363.5m lbs moly and 51.7m ounces silver; (Recoverable CuEq 0.46%)
Right. I must not have been clear. Indeed the drilling of FS related items had to stop at some point in order to turn out the FS document. That drilling stopped in 2011.
2012 drilling set out to drill outside of anything related to the FS. That makes sense. But we stopped drilling in mid summer 2012 when we had lots of other targets to drill and pretty sad results for the 5 or so drills we did sink in 2012 in Discovery and Mike (3 failed drills?).
That's why I ask: why did we stop in 2012? If drilling is the only way to confirm mineralization, why not drill those targets outside of anything to do with the FS? Indeed our whole 2012 exploration programme was rather soft.
If we drilled Mike properly, plus ES and GK and the target in between the ES & GK zones and one or more of these zones were deemed to be mineralized with assayed results, would that not have been a real confirmation of our district? Seems like we sat on our hands last summer when there was so much work to be done.
I think that is a good question for PDAC. Why stop drilling outside the FS? Why no titan survey as promised in the NR proclaiming our 2012 exploration programme. Why only ~5000m of drilling, not the full 10k?