The last 43-101 for ECU was done by Micon, a world class firm, and it was indeed 431 million silver eq. ounces which includes all metals (gold, silver and base metals) that were above the established and agreed upon cut-off line. The reason people see different numbers on occassion is because some like to focus on just precious metals with no base metal credits, either way is good and acceptable provided one is comparing apples to apples and makes it clear.

In the case of inferred versus M&I, this is old debate with various views. I would contend that the only question is does one include 100% of inferred 50% or none in the valuation calculation. For me it depends on who did the resource report verification/confirmation, the criteria used, continuity of the mineral body, is there minebale verfication versus only drill holes, nearby mines, historical context, history of mining in the area or even the country, relationships to previous resource reports, management history, relationship to exploration success, etc. All this to say there can be significant differences in quality of resource reports from company to company or from first report compared to third or fourth. The difinitions used for acceptable inferred, for example, can vary but the firms with the best reputations like Micon offer the most credible results from an investment standpoint.

On the subject of samples assayed in an uncredited lab in Torreon, this only applies to those since the last resource report and this lab is in process for accreditation which can take a long time. One of the criteria is to demonstrate operations at the accredited level over a period of time. In the case of ECU they used this lab which is run using accredited standards because it was very close, convenient and cost effective. I do however understand that a new engineering firm doing the 43-101 would want to verify some old samples as a simple matter of verification, it's good standard policy and to not do so would be remiss or demonstrate a low standerd or professionalism, somehting that would concern me.

At one point I know that ECU intended and planned and was confide into showing a significant increase in M&I from Velardena mines plus an increase in inferred and that SRK was tasked with this review and confirmed it was doable based on the data. Post merger Golden obviously and understandably preferred to work with their own suppliers and I have little information I can shed on this revised process other than what Silverbull indicated which is some check assays are planned. I do however expect a very positive outcome based on past history, actual mining verifacation of grade and widths from some parts of the resource and good exploration results since the last update resource report.

I do agree with the assessment by others here that the company is mega cheap based on ounces in the ground and I would place a high degree of confidence in the inferred as calculated in previous resource reports.