eerily quiet in here , page-2

I do not like what happened with the Mt Barrett fiasco. ORO placed all costs for the venture in the hands of DMN, a company which is not a mining specialist, and which was in the doldrums last May trading at 0.001 cents. A document, GEOPHYSICAL COMPARISON OF MT BARRET AND MT WELD by independent consultants Southern Geoscience Consultants Pty. Ltd. is at http://www.datamotion.asia/ (This site has not been brought up to date since the news of not finding a Mt Weld type REE)

While DMN SH are focussing in the debacle that took place on Tuesday 14 June 2011, when there was a surge in sales of DMN just before the trading halt and news of not finding a Mt Weld type REE, no one has focussed on whether the document by SGC was a fair statement of the prospects of finding REE.

I note Geogeorge on 31 March 2011 posted on HC http://www.hotcopper.com.au/post_single.asp?fid=1&tid=1423856&msgid=8071822 (pardon my mild edit of his typos):
?Just wanted to say that I had a look at that geophysical report to the Mt Burnett 'Mt Weld Look-a-like'. Personally I don?t think it has legs. I could probably point out a thousand other anomalies in that area of WA with similar looking geophysical responses. What?s even more worrying is the fact the anomaly is right on the edge of what I would interpret as a buried granite. More likely than not the high response is some magnetite rich segregation along the margin of a granite.?

Later in the same thread Geogeorge also suggested:
?To be honest mate it?s doing a couple of 2d profile models doesn?t take a lot skill. There aren?t a lot of mines found based solely on geophysical anomalies. Instead of committing half a mil on a drill program you could do a comprehensive partial ionic leach geochem survey for $50,00 and find out if there is a target there in the first place.?

Maybe we should take a closer look at how this fiasco developed longer term: Could the SGC document have been tempered with more doubt? Why didn?t ORO take a more cautious path to testing the Mr Barrett anomaly that did not place SH at risk of such losses?