Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
you are not alone
Also, the resource number used is now based on a smaller 2.0 g/t threshold than in the earlier estimate (2.2 g/t). That had the effect of making the latest resource estimate larger than it would have been. However, the threshold should be moving the other way, say from 2.2 g/t to 2.4 g/t (or more) if the price of gold stays down here and/or if continued inflation is seen in mining costs. In fact, as the trailing avg price of gold factors in this 1350-1450 and the 1600ish figure can no longer be used then a future estimate will have an uphill battle to just hold the current number of ounces.
PS The note I posted in reply to PB shows why I agree with your
PB - read the footnotes after the table presenting the results of the estimate. There are two major differences, both of which have a downward impact on the amount estimated.
One is that a lower cutoff grade was used, but as very few assays were above the cutoffs, either the former or the new more conservative cutoff, the impact of this was minimal.
The other change which I feel explains it all is that the block size was significantly reduced. It is my opinion, and purely gut level opinion, that much of the delay in getting the new NI 43-101 release to us, the owners, was because the company was contesting the change in the modeling from what had been used in earlier estimates. An assay is still extinguished by the reverse cubed distance method, but now the boundary where an assay (without an adjacent assay that can be seen as correspondent) stops contributing any grams to the total estimate is much sooner. IIRC the block size was roughly halved, so the volume influenced by any one assay is reduced (in absence of adjacent correlated assays) to on the order of 1/8th of what it was previously.
Why did mgmt spend so much money, time, and effort on infill drilling just to have those holes not have an impact on the resource ? The PR said that they were too far apart. Well, they were not too far apart for the prior modeling. If that were the case it would be a serious error on the part of mgmt to have spent that money. They are too far apart for the new block size in the model adopted for the latest estimate.
As I see it those estimating the resource held their ground under pressure from the company and refused to change the block size. This would be because they felt that the nature of the assays, of the mineralization (of smaller veinlets mostly) does not justify extrapolation to the distances used in the earlier estimates. IMO they are correct in doing this. With the narrow widths of most assays, and the difficulty in correlating any to other adjacent assays it is hazardous to assume continuity between them. That is how I read it PB.
All JMHO
It is not that obscure. If the economy is strengthening (big IF) then there is the specter of inflation looming under that rock. If the Fed exits the current QE interest rates are not held down, which also translates to inflation. If the Fed contracts its bloated balance sheet the drain of liquidity, and the overload on the markets of the mortgage securities could each pop a certain equity bubble and this makes a move of wealth from equities an increasingly strategic move. But to where, particularly if the dollar is under duress? Also, if the Fed exits and/or unwinds the huge sums on corporate balance sheets earn more just sitting, the incentive to deploy is reduced, which further squeezes the money supply and so the general economy.
On the other hand, if the Fed does not exit and unwind, but continues, then the eventual exit and unwind just become even more difficult/problematic, and of course the mountain of fiat grows endlessly making the probability that true value, as in "lack of confidence and trust" adjusted value of the dollar becomes more clearly visible to a larger circle.
With a little thought I feel it can be seen that either path could lead to an economic collapse, so imo the path that will be take is what appears to provide the most prolonged change.
All of the above spell uncertainty. Gold has always been a haven for ducking uncertainty. Presently massive efforts have been underway to prevent that shift from happening. But more is needed than artificial depression of the price of the metals. Something must happen to relieve the uncertainty and to show that either or of the possible paths is possible without dire consequences, something which to date I have not noticed being shopped around for acceptance . . . therefor uncertainty rules the day (until the desperation to prevent a rise in gold price from heightening visibility of the situation triggers more suppression).
It has been a vicious cycle for months, with a lot of negative news/situations being swept under the carpet as part of the process.
MUX short interest hits new high of 30,670,412 per 5/15 settlement date.
Does anyone have a handle what part of this is due to shorting of ETFs in which MUX is a part as compared to direct shorts of MUX itself ?
I will factor in mgmt with a dominant fraction of what all gets placed on the balance. Mgmt has full responsibility for the success or failure of the exploration/mining effort, of the company image and reputation, of the ability to network and venture with others, etc..
With a mgmt that acts drunken on the glitter of gold, rolling the dice all or none, acting like a typical Vegas mark, etc. how is one to see anything temperate, conservative, pragmatic? Sorry, just how I have come to see things.
JMO
We ain't seen nothing yet !
Quite the turn of events indeed.
I must have totally misunderstood your post mentioning Cooper and VMS
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=88628929
Sometimes one just has to buck up, dirty job someone must do, all that.
Tough duty, enjoy. I will be beach hopping starting the 10th for just short of 2 weeks, not sure how I would do with deep water instead of near sand under me (and I will have the portable with broadband :).
Enjoy the time away from it all, and let it be just that, no worries, what will be will be, and if there is a downturn in your time away you do know it is a temporary thing (maybe put the smartphone away too and really surprise her).
Cheers
Cooper was the reference they
Wasn't testing to be done in November, and then in December ?
If they do not then they will have missed their "in the first half" projected timeframe. Right? So that is before July. What is this July anyway, the second anniversary of the AMF announcement ? Weren't we in testing (in-house) at the time with promise that the preliminary in-house results would be forthcoming ?
I thought they were hired to do an independent testing, which Wanderport expressed confidence would confirm what Robert has found and not disclosed, and that the independent testing would result in a deliverable said to be an "interpretation of their analysis", from which Wanderport would then decide what to disclose.
Most all of what you have said I do agree to, however your saying
With Lulu de Silva in the ring imo all bets are off, but as he has shown an understanding of economic compromise, with luck his visit with the Mendoza governor left some messages that will sink in (and in provinces beyond Mendoza, although that is said to be one of the most mining unfriendly in Argentina).
The bottom line is that Brazil is in desparate need of stable potash supply.
the manipulation is ending ?
Positive news on KC would be nice. At this point however the silence is deafening.
That Xstrata Copper (now within Glencore) estimates their Kidd mine life until 2018 now that they opened up the 9,800 ft deep level, and yet recently entered into agreement with GoWest
http://gowestgold.mwnewsroom.com/press-releases/gowest-gold-signs-letter-of-intent-plan-to-proces-tsx-venture-gwa-201305290876755001
to convert and refurbish some of the Kidd milling capacity to process GoWest gold ore beginning in 2015, all sort of makes one feel that they are not seeing much hope of extending their Timmins operation any time soon.
my main take-aways from the note from CD
a) KC did not go well
b) Chester will be the new cash drain
c) The chase after mineralization at TPW will continue while there is cash in excess of that going to Chester
d) The light at the end of the tunnel has been noticed and it showed that without income EXS has questionable future (i.e. that TPW is not going to be the big buy-out, and that raising funds is becoming iffy) so Chester was a scramble for something that could be pointed to as "near-term" and as (potential) cash-flow generator
Feeling generous at the end of a weekend that is my 2 + 2 = 4 cents
JMO
Did I miss a link in your post ? as "this chart" did not seem included.
Point taken. IIRC there were some stories floated some months back about changing that term limit.
I don't think WDRP has enough money to buy too many days of lab time and manpower . . . so testing . . . or tested
She is not stnnding for election, as she is approaching the midpoint of her second (and so mandated last) term
The issue is whether the election will leave her with a rubber-stamp congress or whether her party looses seats
The interesting thing in this article is how her son Maximo is given a role that likely is highly visible and popular with the majority of avg Joe
imo that is a very likely "maybe", as I have in years not ever seen anything make CD budget from a headstrong position before.
maybe Argentina does have a more screwed up political system than the US, but I tend to think that they just are not as good at keeping things under the covers, that the US is the all-time goof-up as evidenced by the recent inability of the two party system to function for benefit of anyone except party interests.
Just to be clear now, imho : Great Design, Poor Execution.
Good write-up. Thanks for posting. It was nice to see mention for a change of the other parts of the whole Kootenay story beyond Promontorio as well as an understanding of the implications in the longer term of the diatreme interpretation given to the geology last year.
Oh. Then that must explain the huge volume today
Why you say "strong buy" ?
Lot's of cap ex ahead, plus Mongol uncertainties.
My own interpretation/understanding is some of each instead of either or.
There is good reason so many analysts constantly remind that management is one of, if not the most important things to assess about a junior.
Something at least 18 months ago, when CD had just turned in the maiden NI estimate and was doing back to back placements to start drilling even deeper with each hole around the 800 meter mark I posted here a couple times that the management style reminded me of the addicted gambler in Las Vegas setting all the eggs in one basket, rolling the dice and going for broke despite all odds. Of course the ignored baskets like EL might have, or might not have, had decent showings with the money spent of 5 ro 10 of the longer holes, and of course those long holes were each a roll of the dice, something of a long shot that the few centimeters of diameter would pass through a thick bonanza, but management seemed blinded by the little bit of glitter that had already been brought up from down there so there was no other thing to consider except believing the next will hit the elephant even though there had not yet been any signs of elephants but only little minnows here and there.
It may be important to keep in mind that there is a big difference between having a unit, which can be pictured and fired up for tests, and having something that meets all the claims the company was making back when most of us (that have been in, or in/out, and tracking this for what, half a decade before too much longer) first came to thinking of the possibilities for a microwave water heater.
Good post InXS, and imo accurate in comments on prior posts.
So much is indeed a matter of perception, as you say, isn't it.
All of those intercepts are shallower than the featured intercept (3.65 G/Tonne AU Over 6.0 Meters) in the recent EXS news release.
The 0.93 meters of 2732.64 g/t starts 257.6 meters down hole (which means it cannot be more than 257.6 meters below surface, but it can be nearer to surface than that).