changing tonnes and grades, page-3

The change in grade I'll bet is to do with making a comparison to the amigos numbers - every Resource has a tonnes/grade curve calculated and it is easy to see what tonnes are at what grade (above a lower cut-off) - if they are quoting 12g/t - then these are the tonnes available to treat at that grade (based upon a signed off JORC). They should have clarified this in their statement.
What I think its showing is that the amigos grade is pie in the sky undoable - you just cannot propose to mine something based on a made up grade. If someone can show me a single gold mining operation in WA that has exceeded grade forecasts (besides Ramelius Wattle Dam), then I'll eat my hat. Starting off with a made up number just shows that the amigos are at best amateurs and don't understand, and at worst will either destroy the company by trying it themselves, or have some other hidden agenda. I would have happily been willing to listen to amigos proposals, but I just can't go past the grade thing - its hogwash and every number based therafter is rubbish. As a beacon shareholder, and as a geologist involved in WA gold mining for 20years - this thing is a farce. I don't know what the amigos intentions are, but I can guarantee you it isn't to create value for beacon shareholders - if it were they would have a properly substantiated proposal, not putting forward claims for something that looks like they figured it out on the back of a beer coaster. It goes back to what I said earlier - if you want to go mining you cannot do it underestimating the capital, and inflating the grade - you (ie the shareholders) will get screwed. Thats enough of a rant for now....