Gentlemen,
Moving on from NROs falsehoods re the Tanbreez license, I want to talk about the current soon to be filed 2020 EIA document.
Everyone seems to be really excited, most seem to think that they know that the company has finished and done a job that is good enough to be approved. And I am hearing everyone assume that if what they did is approved that the whole EIA will be approved, am I right in my assumptions?
Why do you all think that? Is it because you don't think there aren't any other issues in the EIA that haven't already been approved? If so why do you think that. Mr. Mair never actually said that, and we have never seen any first hand information sent to the company by the GOG that told us why the 2019 EIA failed and told us all of what was necessary for the GOG to approve the next EIA attempt.
So you all think you know all the answers as to what the company has to do to get the 2020 EIA submission approved. I don't think you are correct in that assumption.
We all know that the Bulk Sample that the company took to use for its testing was taken from a 40+ year old "surface" Ore Dump. You guys denied this fact until the company published photographs of the people actually taking the samples from the Ore Dump. The Ore that was collected had been above ground and subject to the weather, rain and snow, for 40+ years, there-in washing out the elements in the Ore, especially the soluable elements such as fluorine. The result of the company's taking the sample from the surface 40+ year old ORE dump meant that before they even started they had ruined everything, every bit of work that needed to be done, because the Bulk Sample was totally unrepresentative, of the underground Kvanefjeld Ore that is to mined. Of course, the sample should have been taken by opening up the adit at the property and taking the sample from underground there. By not doing so, the company's work on the unrepresentative ore from the surface Ore Dump can, and probably will, be judged as invalid. The company say they have drill core to use for underground testing, but even this core, because of the high pressure water used in the drilling and the water used in the core cutting makes the soluable elements in the core wash out as they take it making the core unrepresentative too. So the company has used unrepresentative ore in all the bulk sample tests. How do I know that, because they (bulk sample from the surface and drill core) are the only samples the company has taken. And we know that the company has not opened the adit for years and years, so nothing has come from there. So they have had no way to get to underground representative ore. The company's decision and their use of these ore sources are a big problem because it invalidates all the test work done using it and means that the company's EIA contains invalid data because of the unrepresentative ore used.
That could cause the 2020 EIA to fail, it actually should cause the 2020 EIA to fail.
The details of the Bulk Sampling problem are well known to the community in S. Greenland and they are not happy about it. The Greenies also know all about this Unrepresentative Bulk Sample situation and they will be making their feelings known as well to S. Greenland and China.
This situation should cause the latest EIA to fail, the company clearly made a decision to use unrepresentative ore. Again, the problem is that the data as to the Fluorine (highly soluable) and the Thorium and Uranium data shown in the EIA came from the surface ore dump and for safety and ecological reasons the government must have reliable representative data to design the project such that it is all dealt with safely. Their current work will not allow that to happen, which could and should cause the EIA to be rejected again until the company actually does the work properly.
So don't be surprised if the company doesn't get rejection number 5 with their current EIA submission.
Ciao
Expand
