hoghead, can you explain your post from SI?

... and we are choosing to ignore the fact that our deposit sits under a significant amount of waste rock.

Open at depth and 1/3 of a km of waste above it doesn't bode well for being minable.

Our "open at depth" holes ended up being worth exactly nothing as the open pit model can only go so deep. If the grades were high enough for an underground mine it would be a different story - but they are clearly not.

The CEO's job it to dress up the property the best they can - but we can't trust them to talk up anything but the positives.

The meat of the info is in what they don't say.

What are you referring to?

==================================

Sure, I can explain the context of my post and the reasons why I think that way. I fully stand behind everything I said too.

I was replying to this post on SI, where a poster posted what the Carmax CEO had stated regarding how awesome the Carmax deposit (not Schaft Creek) and the drill results were. Brundall posted some rebuttle to that and I added some more. I welcome anyone to take a look over there, I have nothing to hide (a lot of good discussion about the actual project there).

I pointed out that the good quality ore is under 1/3 km or waste rock (see recent drill results), and that of course the CEO glossed over that - that is what they do... talk up positives and no comment on negative aspects. That is a lot of overburden and I don't think the grades look good enough to make it worthwhile to remove all that waste. Do you disagree with that? If not, please explain why.

I used as an example that some of CF's great holes that had great grades deep down and "open at depth" turned out to be worthless to us as they are way below the bottom of the pit. When those holes were first announced we were celebrating that the grades were so good and the fact that they were open at depth, but we (I) didn't put it together that they were too deep to get at. Do you dissagree with my assumption? If not, please explain why.

NR's from exploration companies on the Venture are always optomistic and not nessasarily a honest indication of real value IMHO. They have to shine it up and make it look as good as possible. They want investors to buy shares. Its just the way it is... Negative aspects are rarely discussed unless they have a viable solution for them. If there is anything this investment has taught me is to look much closer at what the company states in NRs. I challenge you to find a drill result NR from any Venture explorer that isn't spun as positive as can be. If you disagree, please explain why.