This is a very good line of thought from North on the Igloo; hence, my previous post regarding Mr Mike Page - the answers to his rhetorical questions are what need to be gift wrapped and given to our "Question Boy" regulators :

"It seems very unusual to me for one professional geologist to find that the resources stated in the previously accepted 43-101 would differ so greatly from the current.

As a matter of professional ethics wouldn't a professional geologist have a duty of care to inform the geologist who signied off on the previous estimates if he believed there was a serious concern or misrepresentation of the resource estimates.

It even seems more unusual that the revise estimates were based upon the discounting of the previous methods of calcualtion and not on acutal recalculation. Wouldn't a professional geologist have a duty of care to inform the previous esimator that he believed his methods were inapproporaite or in error.

As I vaguely recall the previus estimates were supposedly based upon industry standard methodology and something in the order of 35,000 to 50,000 drill core records. Who is the shareholder supposed to believe. The geologist who analyzed 35,000 drill logs over several years to develop the previous estimates or the one who took a quick look and decided it was all calcualted the wrong way?

Would the previous "professional" geologist of record not have a duty to respond the this attack on his professional practice especialy if he is still practicing and wishes to retain any credibility in the mining industry.

I am not a geologist so I am just wondering why one professional would allow such a blatant attack on his work to go without a response in an industry where your reputation is critical

In accordance with professional ethics wouldn't this duty of care and opportunity to respond normaly be conducted prior to releasing information publically?

Doesn't the mining industry depend extensively on the credibility of profesional geologists to generate investment. Should potential investors start being concerned about the ethics and regulation of profesional practice in geology in Canada?

Would Geoscientists Canada, formerly Canadian Council of Professional Geoscientists (CCPG), be intersted in what standard of professionalism is being demonstrated here?

Just wondering. That's all."