At my request, Dr. David R. Webb, although reluctant, was kind enough to comment on the most recent piece of crap banged out by Lovecarats (LC) on another Tyhee forum.

You know, the one where civility and credibility don't matter, and where you can say most anything and get away with it.

In an email to me today, Dave felt that LC's statements are and have been incorrect, misleading, and biased. And to be reposting them makes Dave feel like it somehow validates what is basically garbage [may words].

But for those of you who might take seriously things LC says, you may want to balance them with what I paraphrased from the responses Dr. Webb provided this afternoon, here printed in emboldened and italicized letters.

LC-PRODUCTION is forecast to START IN 2015!!

DW- Not the number Tyhee is presenting, but an independent’s view. Could be correct, but maybe not.

LC-AVERAGE ANNUAL PRODUCTION for first 5 years is only 110,000 oz per year

DW- Recovered ounces of gold in years 1 to 7 are 78.8k, 103.1k, 109.9k, 135.3k, 127.1k, 170.0k, 72.9k. So in fact, at full production (years 2 to 6) we produce 129,000 ounces of gold per year. Years 7 and 8 are shutdown years, something both the PFS states and our recent exploration results suggest will be pushed back.

LC- Average cash operating cost is US$546/oz or CD$587/oz, well off the early numbers projected by Weeb. Note that accuracy is still possibly off by 30%!! (ie. could be over $700/oz!!

DW- It also means costs could be less that US$390.

LC- PAYBACK is 5 YEARS!!! Much longer than most projects = ADDITIONAL RISK

DW- Five years is longer than some, shorter than other projects. How much is much longer? 6 months, 1 year? Longer paybacks sometimes mean additional risks. The price of gold could go down, costs could go up. It’s all a matter of perspective.

LC- There still has not been an independent detailed review of Resources and Reserves: still the same folks doing them: Practico et al EBA have only signed off on the database Section 18.1

DW- This is incorrect.

The PFS is 100% independent, and the senior engineer, N. Eric Fier, Director of Mining Planning Services for EBA Engineering Consultants with 24 years of experiences states in his Certificate of Qualifications (pg 171 of the PFS) “I am responsible for all sections of the Technical Report”. This means reserves, resources, mine design, etc.!

LC- Mining Dilution and Recovery are only ASSUMED...and at a low 5% & 95%.

DW- This is not unusual for open pit operations, particularly in disseminated metal deposits.

LC-This area is typically much better developed in a professional PFS.

DW- Show an example where it is better developed in a PFS.

LC- Using key assumptions at this stage could result in disaster later on.

DW- Using any assumptions might be a disaster later on. One should add contingencies (such as escalations in input costs of 10 to 30%) and conservative estimates such as metallurgical recoveries less than pilot plant tests, or gold prices at the low end of industry standards (lower than Goldcorp’s recent presentations). One should exclude some zones as too early to model, and assume no exploration potential where it has clearly been demonstrated. If the operation is still profitable, then one might say it is robust and can tolerate a series of failures and still survive.

LC- Clan Lake delivers a total 38,000 oz gold! But it is not even included in Permitting process.

DW- Diavik and Ekati are mining diamond pipes that were never included in their original permits! This suggests that the permits can be modified, renewed, or even added to as circumstances warrant.

LC- Lots of wishy-washy statements regarding assumptions. This is NOT CONSIDERED GOOD at this stage of study.

DW- All of the statements and assumptions are industry standard for a PFS. One should be wary of any PFS that does not contain this language. Could anyone find a PFS where these statements don't exist?

Thank you Dave!

My best,

Baires