Is this mine every gonna be built?, page-68

Good afternoon gentlemen,

I found this morning that a post of mine was moderated because I mentioned another member. I will not do so and I will redo the rest of that post having removed the problem area the moderator informed my of.

I post on this blog because I am a shareholder and I see a number of unanswered questions that need to be discussed and known by my fellow shareholders especially since the company has just submitted a new EIA. Please find a number below that I present for your consideration.

I am concerned about the work done prior to the most recent EIA and I am concerned about the company's financial position and their raising more funds. I will deal with the financial in a separate post and concentrate of the questions about the EIA work.

1st) I am very much concerned with the Fluorine problem Kvanefjeld has in the deposit. The company has given us several different numbers as to the Fluorine content of its ore. In one of the early annual reports, the company said the Fluorine content at Kvanefjeld is between 2% and 10%. At the time of this statement the company expected to actually sell the Fluorine as one of its products, so a big number was a good thing in terms of its pointing to big supply of their product to be sold. Later in another annual report, the company said the Fluorine content was .2%. The company at that time had abandoned making and selling a Fluorine product and was going to have to deal with removing the fluorine from whatever products it made, and if not a product, the Fluorine, depending on the concentration could be an significant Environmental problem, so a small number like .2% was a better number.
So what is the real Fluorine number? And where was the sample used taken from that was used to get the amount of fluorine found in the representative ore to be mined.

We need the answers to all of these questions, we don't have them at present.
So how can the EIA be approved without this information? I would suggest that it can't be.

2nd) The Bulk Sample and The Bulk Sample testing program is another area that, because of the company's actions, raises several very serious questions.
A little background. GML chose to take the bulk samples for testing for purposes of the EIA, from a 40 year old surface Ore Dump. This Ore Dump had sat on the Edge of a part of the Kvanefjeld deposit for 40 years during which time the ore had been continually washed out over the 40 years by the many winters' and springs' and falls' and summers, with many rain and snow storms. The washed out ore in this surface ore dump was taken and used for the bulk sample and the bulk sample testing work for the EIA requirements. The company has admitted to doing exactly this, and even published a picture of their workers picking up the rocks at the Ore dump in Hot Copper.
The company took no bulk sample ore from underground using the underground adit. They have said they have used some drill core as samples, but drill core also gets washed out from the high pressure water used in the drilling process and also in the water used in the cutting of the core which also washes the core out.

So as the result of these decisions made by the company, the bulk sample tests were done on soil that is washed out and cannot be considered "representative ore" compared to the underground ore the company is planning to mine which is the subject of the Ore subject of the mining application and the EIA they are applying for. A short version of that statement is, the unrepresentative ore the company used, for the bulk sample tests, has made all the bulk sample work and results invalid. They should not be allowed to be used in the EIA application, again, the sample in not representative of the soil they have applied for an EIA and a Exploitation License to mine.
So given these actions, how can the GOG or the Danes approve and EIA with no valid bulk sample test data?
The answer is they cannot.

3rd) Given the unrepresentative bulk sample data used in the preparation of Feasibility Study, how can we use have confidence in the company's Feasibility based on unrepresentative ore data?
How can an EIA be approved with unrepresentative data having been used in the Feasibility Study?
the answer here again it can't be.

There are several other problem areas I could mention, but these are more difficult to flesh out since much of the data that supports the companies testing has not been released, and as such, we have not been able to review. The areas mentioned above are obvious and need to be dealt with and re-done, or at least fully disclosed, before the company can go forward at all. Why the company made these choices are also questions that need to be answered.

Ciao