OT: The accuracy of our posts & the BMK claims issue revisited...
posted on
Jan 08, 2008 11:35AM
NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)
Like anyone, I do not like to be misunderstood, misinterpreted or misquoted, particularly on a forum where the information we share is for our collective benefit in advancing the knowledge and awareness of our investment in NOT...
Like anyone, I am wrong about things all the the time, and like most, my I try not to let my ego get in the way of learning something. In fact, I would rather be proven wrong through rigourous, mature, and intelligent debate and learn something that may benefit us all, than be right just for the sake of being right.
My primary obejctive in posting on this forum is to contribute to maintaining an accurate and useful 'library' of information for our collective benefit, and sometimes just to help boost morale :-)
I am not here to win any popularity contests, but I sincerely thank all of you who have given my posts green thumbs.
So with that in mind, I have reposted below my post detailing the the ownership of claims adjacent to NOTs' discovery claim. For those who do not recall, or were not here at the time, there was debate about whether BMK had staked claims adjacent (this word means immediately next to or beside) to NOT's DE discovery after the discovery was made. As I established in this post with a detailed list of claims around the discovery claim, and as we now know, clearly nobody has/had. It should also be clear that I sometimes take great care and effort to help ensure our board is populated with accurate information.
BMK has staked some claims which do in fact adjoin some of NOT's DE properties, of which there are now very many, but these claims are nearly 2kms from the discovery and I would not consider this to be 'adjacent' to the discovery.
Its unforunate that such old issues sometimes get redrawn to the fore, as I beleive they were settled long ago. However, I do take seriously my contributions to this forum and therefore will respond when what I have previously written is 'mispresented' by other contributers.
I have copied below my post regarding the issue of BMK claims...
Posted by: Bentonstocks on September 26, 2007 04:34PM
In response to: Status of Claims in the Imm... by Bentonstocks
There seems to have been some confusion lately concerning the status of claims surrounding and in the vicinity of Noront’s discovery claim (3012264), which it optioned from Condor in May of this year. Indeed, this confusion is attributable to what I believe is a somewhat misleading news release made by BMK in which they state that have recently staked “claim groups adjacent to the south boundary of the Noront Double Eagle Property and covering what is interpreted to be the contact of an important geological unit.” Some have understood this to mean that the claims staked adjoin NOT’s discovery, which is not the case. I suggest anyone who is in doubt contact BMK and ask them to clarify the location of their claims in relation to the location of claim #3012264 – NOT’s discovery claim. In an effort to resolve this matter for the benefit of both NOT and BMK shareholders , I have listed below all of the claims adjoining or in the immediate vicinity of NOT’s discovery claim, specifying position, title holder, and date acquired. I hope this will help set the record straight. There are more claims, but I think the list below is sufficient to establish the record of claims in the discovery area. Furthermore, the claims listed are cover a 360 degree radius around the discovery claim. Noront:
Fancamp:
Probe Mines:
Source: http://www.claimaps.mndm.gov.on.ca/website/ claimapsiii/viewer.htm Respectfully submitted by Bentonstocks. |