Ann: Agreement with Sokimo on Multi-Million Ounce Gold Project, page-154

Hi @apjkm, I re-read the Ann and I'll take out this appropriate paragraphs in italics below.

"..............Resource estimation work completed by previous owners of the Kibali South Gold Project between 2009 and 2011 was assessed in 2014 by Coffey South Africa, a reputable global resource consultancy to be sufficient to quote a Mineral Resource under the South African Code for the reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves (the SAMREC Code) 2007 Edition amended July 2009. The SAMREC code uses similar categories as the JORC code so can be considered on a similar basis to the categories used by the JORC Code. The mineral resource over the Kibali South Gold Project has been calculated as 28.1Mt at an average grade of 1.63g/t of gold for 1.47 million ounces at a 0.5g/t cut-off, all of which is in the Inferred Category. These estimates are considered historical and foreign and are not reported in line with the JORC (2012) Code. A Competent Person has not done sufficient work to classify these estimates under the JORC (2012) Code. It is uncertain that following further work that the historical and foreign estimates will be able to be reported as mineral resource in accordance with the JORC (2012) Code. Further details are to be found in JORC Table 1 in the Appendix of this announcement. ................"

The problem identified here are no different when you get historicalold samples because JORC Code 2012 is very strict on a few criteria, as against what may have taken place before not withstanding the above comments in italic. What I think is that the data is probably quite good but there are elements in the data - noting time lag issues to data assessment and the fact the samples were under SAMREC than JORC Code 2012 - that won't allow a Competent Person to sign off on it as been exactly in line with all elements of the JORC Code. VEC wouldn't be the only company that has this issue when looking at historical data that dates back before 2012.

When you get to JORC Code requirements at the back of the Ann the following areas VEC states "No records provided to VEC" in the following areas of the JORC Code:
1. Drill sample recovery.
2. Logging
3. Location of data points
4. Sample security

Under sampling techniques heading in the table, whilst comments were made, a key comment made in that area is this in italics here "The competent person considers there is uncertainty about the mitigating measures to ensure no contamination, recovery or sample integrity." (i.e. I presume here they have insufficient documented evidence from those doing the initial drilling that the sampling techniques ticked all the required boxes.)

The points above would make it difficult IMO for a Competent Person to sign of as meeting requirements of the JORC Code 2012, but the key to me is that the consultants seems ok with what has been done in the historical data but because (obviously IMO the time lag between samples and assessment) that data in relation to the points above is not available (the historical time factor from drilling to when they looked at data to when VEC got the data) and therefore a Competent Person cannot sign off to it as meeting JORC Code.

But having another read of it, the Ann is quite bullish and I think any drilling by us may confirm these results (note I use may but certainly if correct processes were used when those samples were taken etc back in pre 2010 then I think it will be all good here). BTW I hold another share in the DRC and all I will say is that when they did some drilling (seven holes) on that deposit this year they confirmed what the historical records were inferring and now that company is intending to do a further substantial drilling program to get to an appropriate JORC Code 2012 resource estimation.

Round about way to answer your question but hope it helps.

All IMO