Pretium - Goldexplorer in BC (Seite 63)

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 45.909.864 von boersenbrieflemming am 25.11.13 09:09:21...Der von dir angesprochene Punkt hat sich dann erledigt. Ressourcenschaetzung bestätigt...

Ich fürchte da liegst du falsch. Oder wurde schon eine Sammelklage zurückgezogen? Es steht ja nach wie vor der Vorwurf im Raum, Snowden hätte die falsche Methodik angewendet. Und dies sowohl für die Schätzung vom Nov. 2012 als auch für das Bulk Sample. Insofern ist die (falsche?) Schätzung bisher zwar bestätigt worden aber ob sie nun wirklich den vorgeschriebenen industriellen Standards entspricht werden die Gerichte (Sachverständige) klären müssen. Das wird wohl noch dauern.

...Das war der größte Kursgewinn seit Bestehen der Aktie. Mir hat das sehr gefallen...

Das glaube ich dir gern. Wenn man allerdings die vorangegangenen doch sehr tiefen Abstürze betrachtet, so kann man diese auch als sehr einmalig bezeichnen. Das war dann eher wieder unschoen. Zumal sie durch unprofessionelles Verhalten m.M.n. selbst verschuldet waren. Warten wir mal ab, ob Quartermain seinen Anteil zu Tiefstkursen aufstocken konnte.

Denkt mal darueber nach.

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 45.910.200 von hingucker am 25.11.13 09:59:00"falsche Methodik angewendet. Und dies sowohl für die Schätzung vom Nov. 2012 als auch für das Bulk Sample"



Wie kann eine anerkannte und von Majors angewandte Methode (MIK) bei Ressourcenschaetzungen falsch sein, wenn das tatsächliche Ergebnis aus einem Minenbetrieb die Schätzungen übertroffen hat?

"eine Sammelklage zurückgezogen"

Sehr durchsichtig. In der Vergangenheit hast du ja sogar aus "Anklageschriften" zitiert, für die du keinen Beleg erbringen konntest (selbst ausgedacht?) und irgendetwas von "vereidigten Sachverständigen" geschrieben, für die es wiederum auch keine Quellenangabe gab. Gezielte Fehlinformationen. Mich wundert da nur noch sehr wenig. Erledigt ist erledigt (spätestens mit dem Filing der entsprechenden Reports ): Schätzung für das Bulk Sample bestätigt, Ressource bestätigt. Alles gut.

Denk mal darüber nach,

BL

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 45.910.332 von boersenbrieflemming am 25.11.13 10:15:42...Wie kann eine anerkannte und von Majors angewandte Methode (MIK) bei Ressourcenschaetzungen falsch sein...

Eine bei einem Major auch noch so oft angewendete Methode muss nicht zwangsläufig für spezielle geologische Gegebenheiten ebenfalls die richtige sein. Strathcona tritt nicht leichtfertig und ohne Grund von einem Vertrag zurück.

... In der Vergangenheit hast du ja sogar aus "Anklageschriften" zitiert, für die du keinen Beleg erbringen konntest (selbst ausgedacht?) und irgendetwas von "vereidigten Sachverständigen" geschrieben, für die es wiederum auch keine Quellenangabe gab. Gezielte Fehlinformationen....



Gezielte Fehlinformation? Mach dich nicht lächerlich.

Quelle für das Zitat "...The mineral resources, potential mineral reserves and potential gold production in the VOK zone were exaggerated. The Company’s sampling methodology for the Valley of the Kings Bulk Sample Program was unreliable and misleading..." aus der "Anklageschrift":
http://web.tmxmoney.com/article.php?newsid=64155005&qm_symbo…

Für meine Ansicht, dass wohl "vereidigte Sachverständige zur Klärung dieser Fragen gehört werden müssen" brauche ich eine Quellenangabe? Wie kann man denn deiner Meinung nach den Dissenz zwischen Strathcona und Snowden klären?


Denk mal darueber nach.

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 45.910.618 von hingucker am 25.11.13 10:44:20Wie kann man denn deiner Meinung nach den Dissenz zwischen Strathcona und Snowden klären?

Es gibt keinen Dissenz mehr, der geklärt werden müsste - die Schätzung ist validiert. Die Sache hat sich wohl erledigt, es sei denn der später folgende Report sagt etwas anderes aus.

Du zitierst da wieder fleissig irgendwelche PR, schreibst aber etwas von Informationen aus einer Anklageschrift. Wo ist die?

Goldinvest:

Aktie 80% im Plus
Pretium Resources - Goldproduktion aus Großprobe übertrifft Zielvorgabe

http://www.wallstreet-online.de/nachricht/6431668-aktie-80-p…

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 45.911.642 von boersenbrieflemming am 25.11.13 12:39:35Habe heute noch mal 1000 Stück für 4,11 nach gekauft...hoffe das wa jetzt nicht zu früh....Gold Kurs wird erst ab 18.12 wieder anziehen

Gewinnmitnahmen bald abgeschlossen ? Mit meinen zweiten Kauf warte ich noch ab , Gold im Minus und auch der Nachbar Seabridge gleich unter 7$

Mal abwarten was die trader jetzt machen

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 45.914.740 von donnerpower am 25.11.13 17:44:41Das war wirklich extrem erfreulich.

5.83 CAD +0.30 +5.4% 2,367.6k

Der Strathcona-Mann Farq versucht sich in PR - bei dem ganzen "Interview" kann man jedoch im Kopf behalten, das die Cleopatra Vein noch gar nicht in den vorlaeufigen Ergebnissen enthalten ist. Das kommt erst noch. Ich haette mir zudem gewünscht, wenn der Northern Miner etwas mehr ins Detail gegangen wäre.

Strathcona Minerals responds to Pretium's bulk sample result
http://tr.im/4l2ky

Strathcona's Farquharson responds to Pretium's bulk sample result

2013-11-25

VANCOUVER – The resignation of Strathcona Mineral Services from the Brucejack project in early October dealt a huge blow to project owner Pretium Resources (TSX: PVG; NYSE: PVG), which had been pushing the high-grade gold project in northwest British Columbia towards a production decision.

As part of that push in the summer Pretium brought in Strathcona to go underground at Brucejack and mine a 10,000-tonne bulk sample and complete a secondary analysis of the bulk sample using a sample tower. Pretium was privy to drill data, underground mapping results, and results from the sample tower.

After a few months the consultancy realized it was drawing very different conclusions from the data than had Pretium or the project's longstanding consultancy, Snowden. Most importantly, Strathcona came to believe Snowden's late 2012 resource estimate for Brucejack was wrong. In particular, Strathcona could not support Snowden's claim that the area known as Valley of the Kings (VOK) contained 16.1 million indicated tonnes grading 16.4 grams gold per tonne, plus 5.4 million inferred tonnes averaging 17 grams gold.

Pretium had already used that resource estimate as the basis for a feasibility study for Brucejack, which envisions a 2,700-tonne-per-day underground mine churning out 427,000 oz. gold annually for the first ten years of a 22-year mine life.

Strathcona's assessment contrasts with that vision starkly. In its resignation letter to Pretium, Strathcona said, "there are no valid gold mineral resources for the VOK zone, and without mineral resources there can be no mineral reserves, and without mineral reserves there can be no basis for a feasibility study … Statements included in all recent press releases about probable mineral reserves and future gold production [from the VOK zone] over a 22-year mine life are erroneous and misleading."

Coming from a highly regarded independent geologic consultancy, Strathcona's resignation and condemnation made tsunami-scale waves. After all, Strathcona's founder and president is Graham Farquharson, a member of the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame best known for confirming Bre-X's Busang project in Indonesia as a fraud.

Farquharson does not believe that Brucejack is a fraud. He does believe the resource model is wrong and that the actual resource at Brucejack could only support a much smaller mine.

Pretium's share price, which fell more than 50% in October, rebounded notably when the company announced there was more than 4,000 oz. gold in the bulk sample. Through it all Pretium had maintained the bulk sample would contain at least 4,000 oz. and that such results would validate its model.

Farquharson disagrees. In a confusing twist, it turns out he too expected 4,000 oz. from the bulk sample – but only because Pretium stumbled on an unknown vein while mining the sample. Such stumblings being unreliable, he says the problem is not with the bulk sample but with the rest of the deposit, where he is certain the grade is nothing close to 16 grams gold.

The Northern Miner: To start, do you have any comment to make on the results of the bulk sample?

Graham Farquharson: Those results were what we were anticipating: 4,000 ounces of gold production from the bulk sample, based upon the tower sampling results. It's not any surprise. All the sample rounds that we took out of the development workings and so on – those were up to the grades that would work out to in excess of 4,000 ounces in the bulk sample.

TNM: If you were in agreement on that, what then were the specific reasons that you left the project?

GF: We gave a lengthy letter to Pretium with our reasons for withdrawing. I think some of the lines from that letter were made public. But the main item was that we found the bulk sample program, which was composed of different phases (underground drilling, underground geological mapping, and the results of the sample tower), the main objective of all that was validation of the resource model that Snowden had prepared in November of 2012.

That was the basis for the feasibility study that Pretium did in June of this year, which suggested it was going to a be a big mine producing 425,000 ounces of gold a year for the next ten years, within a 22 year mine life. All that was based on the Snowden model, which had 16 million tonnes with a grade of 16 grams per tonne in the indicated category and a further quantity in the inferred category – and we didn't find that.

And Pretium didn't find that, when they did all the underground drilling and geological mapping and the results from the sample tower and so on, so we told them on several occasions that they should be alerting the world that the resource model was not panning out. The whole objective of the bulk sample program was to confirm whether or not the resource model was valid and we said it wasn't.

TNM: Looking at the resource model: if it were valid, how many ounces should there have been in the bulk sample? Is it correct to say you believed 4,000 ounces was a low number?

GF: Not quite, because what did happen in the bulk sample program is that a new vein was discovered called the Cleopatra vein. It's a narrow vein but very high grade and a very different geological occurrence than what was anticipated. The Cleopatra vein is not something that would be mined using bulk mining methods, at 2,700 tonnes a day and so on. It's very high grade material but it's a very narrow vein that you would only be able to mine at a very slow rate.

At the end, the very good grades in that vein do not substantiate or corroborate the initial resource model, which was based on big dimensions, big stopes, and the grade of 16 grams per tonne.

TNM: Right. And you do not think there are enough veins similar to Cleopatra to make what happened in the bulk sample normal in terms of a mine at Brucejack?

GF: No, because they planned for 16 million tonnes, which is a lot of tonnes at that very high grade of 16 grams per tonne in the indicated category in the resource model. The drilling and the mapping and the bulk sample and so on did not find that.

TNM: Do you have an idea in where the error would have originated? We know that this is a very heterolithic deposit with lots of nugget effect – do you have an idea of how Snowden came up with those numbers that you think are so incorrect? Is it the nature of the deposit, is it the methodology that they're using?

GF: It's the methodology and we pointed that out. It's the interpolation method that they use and of course they disagree with us. The big challenge with that project has always been: how far do you extract the latent values from the very high grade assays that are scattered throughout the deposit? It's a very difficult assignment knowing how far to extrapolate those spectacular assay results

We told Pretium that, from all the drilling they've done – and it's a heck of a lot of drilling – and with the sample tower results and so on, none of those come anywhere close to finding a grade of 16 grams per tonne, which is what allows the use of bulk mining methods.

TNM: In general one would assume that the overall grade of a bulk sample would be a more comprehensive test than a sample tower, but what you're saying is that the bulk sample happened in this instance to get skewed by the presence of the Cleopatra vein.

GF: The two will agree in the end (the sample tower and the bulk sample) and they will agree with the underground drilling that they did and that we agreed on. But it is not representative of the rest.

TNM: If you were suddenly in charge of the project, what would you think is the correct path forward for the project from here? I mean it's obviously a very interesting gold occurrence.

Yes, and we told them that it has an excellent chance of being a small tonnage, high grade mine mining in the Cleopatra vein and a couple of other similar occurrences that they found in the last drilling program. If they lined all those up, there's an excellent chance that they could have a small tonnage, high grade gold mine. But they will not have a mine producing 425,000 ounces a year for the next 20 years as they have been advertising so far.

We’re not saying there's no gold there – this is not Bre-X or anything like that. There is gold there but the project needs a much different geological model now, based on the work that's been done and the bulk sample program being different than what they anticipated before they went underground.

And they've been very slow to accept that, because it does make a big change from what they've been telling the markets. But we're absolutely convinced that if this is what the results indicate, then you should tell the world.

Read more at http://www.stockhouse.com/companies/bullboard/t.pvg/pretium-resources-inc?postid=21940600#WWkwhZBzVWzmZL8O.99

--

Persoenlich finde ich das Verhalten von Farq weiterhin umprofessionell. Er haette da lieber einmal einen Site Visit machen sollen und seinen Job zuende bringen können, statt immer wieder Statements abzugeben.

In erste Linie wollen sie jetzt versuchen ihren Ruf zu retten.

Jetzt haben wir zwei wiedersprüche A Bestätigung B Negative Spekulation...mal schauen wir der Markt dies aufnehmen wird