article in the west australian

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/wa/10015267/second-flat-update-increases-papillons-risk/

Very poor journalism. I have read this three times and asked three other people to do so and still have no idea what the journalist is trying to communicate. Increased risk? Hartley's are recommending PIR as a speculative buy? No analysis or explanation.

I am increasingly convinced the JORC code is a joke. Unscroupulous promoters can shop around for the numbers they want or (as in the case with PIR resource mark II) include "extrapolated" numbers without complete disclosure. This was clearly due to management having to deal with resource mark I prepared by CAG which was obviously so optimistic to be almosty fantasy. This is where Alan was let down by not having a strong board to insist that the company take the medicine in one hit.

Fortunately we can assume resource Mark III is not only conservative but supportable and reasonable. Alan now has a strong, experienced, and credible board and chairman who will give him direction and insist on technical accuracy.

The resouce is now irrelevant as PIR is a exploration story based on the initial Fekola results.

The "resource upgrade" that the journalist refers to is in fact going to be nothing of the sort. I doubt we will ever here of the existing resource again. Next is drill results from Fekola and more drill results and then a maiden resource at Fekola and hopefuly a mine at.... FEKOLA!

DYOR