sterv

stervc







Sunday, June 30, 2013 5:26:50 PM
Re: 1manband post# 2420



Post # of 2456





I’m not going to claim that I know more about mining than you, the judge, or anyone here within this forum as I am far from an expert as I am sure that all of you are aware of this. However, I’m going to have to roll with aliangel, dcsteve, and others that are pro EXLA on the legitimacy for what they own. However, I think it should be noted that the judge derived a value, or lack thereof, for the mine because of using the same ”United States (US)” standards for measuring valuation as did the SEC had used. Both the judge and the SEC only acknowledges the ”Industry Guide 7 Standard” for assessing a valuation of a mine. This is significantly different from what actually could be in the ground with using the Canadian standards of which I believe are more accurate for assessing a valuation. Here’s why from some DD that I have shared with other forums in the past…

Under the ”Industry Guide 7 Standards” acknowledged by the SEC, the NI 43-101 (or other Technical Data) cannot be used to be put into any of the future filings with the SEC for EXLA. However, the NI 43-101 and other technical Data is recognized by those who are looking to fund a mining operations . For the EXLA SEC filings, they will have to identify the value of their mineral resources via SEC Industry Guide 7 Standards as can be researched below:

SEC Industry Guide 7