Ann: Artemis Resources to seek a dual listing in Canada, page-49

No - its more likely that your comprehension and understanding is severely lacking, you are looking at the cross section of Carlow Castle right? That section has drill holes ARC003, 004, 006 and 032 on it and the intervals reported on the diagram match the text. Look at the picture and look at hole ARC006 again, there is a 6m interval at 3.41g/T Au 1.36% Cu and 1.94% Co (and a higher grade 3m interval within that same zone that runs at 3m at 6.24g/T Au 2.43% Cu and 3.45% Co.).


So you are trying to say that the entire enterprise valuation of ARV is hanging off one of the 80 or so drill holes at Carlow Castle? Let me give you a clue and say that in the overall scheme of things one drill hole is just an indication of the grade and thickness of the orebody at that particular location at Carlow Castle, it goes in with all the other drilling to do a resource estimate that in the future will usually be quoted as something along the lines of tonnes at X.XX g/T Au, Y.YY% Cu and Z.ZZ% Co.


So its nonsense to pull one drill hole intercept and claim that a company is overvalued based on that one drill hole result. Let me tell you that a 3m with zone running around 6g/T Au at open pittable depth is a very encouraging result, even ignoring the fact that the Cu and possibly Co values are quite high grade and shallow.


Then you ask how high the grades are at NST, SBM and GFI – what grades? The grades in their run of mine ore or from their waste rock dump? From which mine? Many of those companies have multiple mine sites, perhaps we should just use the Eric431 (tm) method of valuation and just value the entire company on one particular drill hole from one cross section hey?

So to help you out I have just extracted the most recent cross section results from the latest quarterly or company presentation exploration results from NST, SBM and GFI etc and picked a hole at random and here they are:

NST – 1.8m @ 11.5g/T Au from the Armada Lode at Jundee (undergound mining so minimum mining width approx 5m)

SBM - GWDD18F 11m @ 1.8g/T Au about 700m under the deepest part of Gwalia underground

Goldfields (not listed on ASX) but – 2m @ 8.3g/T along strike at Invincible (under a salt lake)

NML – 2m @ 1.6g/T Au at Cullings prospect in Victoria

VEC – in DRC – why don't you go there and tell us how safe it is? Grade irrelevant – its the DRC

KL – 4.7m @ 2g/T at Taylor Mine (note 300m below deepest part of underground mine) – the only +100g/T Au intercept I could find in the latest KL announcements was less than a metre thick so thats a bit inconvenient for you – although at those grades it may be economic.

So according to your own ridiculous valuation method then ARV's 3m at 6g/T Au would mean that ARV should have a higher market cap than NST or Kirkland Lake?


Posters can see how stupid your statements are by comparing apples and oranges, or in this case by comparing ARV to guys like NST, SBM and other overseas majors, you are trying to compare the kids lemonade stand down the road to a large enterprise like Coca-Cola Amatil. Each mineral deposit is unique and has its own technical and financial hurdles and are at different stages of development. Its been pointed out to you numerous times that ARV and Novo are in early stages of mineral exploration and the risk/reward profile is different to investing in major gold mining companies.


You have demonstrated that you can't read, you can't understand a cross-section, you can't tell the difference between down-hole assays and a resource statements, or indeed run-of mine grades. You convert a metre of hundreds or grams per ton of sample into thousands of tonnes without reference to the holes and data around it. You mix up and compare major gold mining companies with more junior exploration companies and you can't appreciate the difference in costs and jurisdictional risk profiles between say Kalgoorlie and the DRC.


From your other posts about ARV's Purdy's Reward where you mention drilling 1000m drill holes like at Paulsens, you are making it clear that you also haven't understood the orientation and dip of the conglomerate mineralization at Purdy's or why they would need to drill 1000m holes at Paulsens. And you also have had it explained to you numerous times that the large diameter drilling at Purdy's Reward by Novo failed to provide a representative sample for the coarse nature of the gold deposit, and you carry on about drilling and JORC statements despite the reason why there isn't a JORC statement yet being provided to you again and again. You seem ignorant about the nature of strip ratios, different costs and mining methods available. Its also been pointed out that bulk sampling will be undertaken at Purdy's Reward but you seem ignorant about what that actually means, or what QA/QC is and the nugget effect is, or indeed what Simon Dominy (a world expert in QA/QC of gold deposits) is doing there. You maintain that there is no gold at Purdy's Reward despite the early bulk sampling results near surface and videos of people finding gold on the surface at Purdy's.


And whenever challenged to back up your ridiculous vague assertions with some facts you go missing.


If you're going to be a skeptic you need to be able to understand the technical information and exploration results and argue your case logically with facts. Its good that you aren't invested in ARV – because you are completely ignorant about mineral exploration techniques and obviously don't read the information provided by the company and you show no inclination to ask questions or learn from other posters on here who do understand it.