start here

start here

The Daily IKN email digest, get all daily posts sent to you next day (& no ads)

I say things on Twitter

12/11/13

More on "the trouble with 43-101": Brent Cook's turn

In yesterday's post "the trouble with 43101, continued" we got to hear from 'W', a very experienced geologist, regarding his opinion of the current 43-101 system.

Today I received mail on the subject from another very experienced geologist, Brent Cook of Exploration Insights, and his opinion is something of a rebuttal. He's kindly given permission to share his words and so here they are below, with no further comment from me. Make of them what you will:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
With regard to W's comment 
You cannot legislate away greed, corruption and incompetence—look to Wall Street for proof.  The idea that we should force companies to go thru a second or third review process, require geologists to register and take out liability insurance will only enrich the lawyers and other hangers-on and do little for investor confidence.  How many pages of disclaimers do we need and how watered down a document do you want?
Mining, and particularly exploration geology are not exact sciences and never will be. In general, geologists and estimators are only dealing with between one millionth to one billionth of the deposit and extrapolating from those data into the unknown between drill holes under jungle cover or barren rock. Conclusions and interpretations are therefore subjective.
What it all comes down to, and always will, is the integrity, honesty, competence and experience of the person performing the work—period!
In regards to the 43-101 and its value I have to ask, would W want to get back to the good ol’ Bre-X days? I personally find these reports extremely useful and read many every week. Some are very high quality, many sloppy and too many crap, but the ability to make those assessments is critical to forming an investment decision.
And now a word about capping. Capping or top cutting an assay is in reality a statement by the estimator that they don’t understand the deposit well enough to incorporate the data as is. Capping is by no means a silver bullet for nuggety deposits, it’s usually an admission that you don’t know what else to do.
That’s the way I see it anyway.
Brent