Setting the record straight on Angostura

As a director of Greystar Resources and a faithful Northern Miner reader since 1952, I felt personally vindicated by John Cumming’s front-page feature article on the Angostura project in Colombia (T.N.M., Jan. 2-8/04).

Struggling through some adversity since the 1970s to develop the project, I take as a great compliment the suggestion that “there is every reason to believe that several million ounces can be added to the resource base — a feat that would propel Angostura to the ranks of the world’s top 10 undeveloped gold deposits.”

However, I would like to correct a number of inaccuracies in your account of the project’s history. Specifically:

1) In 1993, Dale Hoffman of Consolidated Pine Channel agreed to fund me for the purpose of securing gold prospects in the Angostura area. I had examined and sampled prospects in the area in the 1970s as manager for foreign exploration for Placer Development Ltd.

2) After securing the two key exploration permits in 1993, Consolidated Pine Channel decided not to continue exploring in Colombia. Subsequently, I submitted the Angostura project to David Rovig and Greystar in 1994.

3) Between 1994 and 1999, as Greystar’s vice-president of exploration, I directed various drilling campaigns defining the Angostura gold-silver deposit.

4) In the 1940s, while searching for porphyry copper deposits in the Angostura area, Anaconda drilled two holes in an attempt to establish the presence of a supergene zone. Owing to the very low core recovery from a packsack drill, the project was abandoned.

5) The “interesting grassroots targets” discovered within Greystar’s land package and mentioned in your article were outlined by Placer Development geologists as a result of a geochemical stream-sediment survey in the 1970s.

Attilio G. Spat

Vancouver, B.C.

John Cumming notes: Following publication of my article, Greystar issued a press release stating that “a comparison of the drill results from the Phase 1 2003-2004 program to earlier programs confirms the geological model but raises concerns that some of the assays from 1997 through 1999, which were used in the preparation and calculations of resource numbers, are high relative to comparable current data. The company’s technical staff identified this concern during a routine review of the current drilling. In question are approximately 800 of 9,000 assays that were used in the 1999 resource calculations. They all involve an assaying procedure known as ‘metallic screen analysis.’

“Core splits, and assayers’ rejects and pulps are available for re-analysis. The company is devising a plan for determining the cause and impact of the variance and incorporating any resultant change into the database for future resource evaluations. A qualified independent engineer has been retained to advise on this issue.

“The concern is only with certain historic data and does not involve data derived from the [current] drilling program, which commenced in July 2003.”