Already well known and is a continuation of the argument we had before. Does a mining company need proven and probable reserves to mine profitably? Of course not, proven repeatedly by human history. Another issue I have with this is the pointlessness of the reserve argument in general. It has almost no legitimacy or practical purpose when applied to companies like GORO or MXSG imo. Then if we talk about g7 reserves vs 43-101 it gets even more absurd. Say Mexus used the international standard and had 43-101 proven and probable reserves, good enough for 99.9% of the participants on earth. We would still be having this exact conversation. According to industry guide 7 which the SEC uses, but the mining industry in general does not, Mexus would still have no reserves and would receive the same general (silly) complaints, despite having proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to all reasonable people. Even once they have 43-101 reserves they will still report they have no reserves because they are a US company. Based on my research and opinion, they have a few hundred thousand ounces roughly the equivalent of 43-101 inferred/ indicated resources, with a super high grade deposit open in all directions. The ground is highly likely to contain to at least a few years of high grade ore even if there isn't a piece of paper that says so with 100% certainty. Again, if you wait for Mexus to prove out industry guide 7 reserves and produce profitably for five years before buying the risk/reward equation will be completely different and so will the share price.
Just as a side note, reserves often require proven production data to be classified as reserves in the first place, so technically you can't have reserves without production or production tests. Canadian miners often start production with no g7 or 43-101 reserves and then they update/reclassify their resources as proven and probable reserves with the cash flow and data obtained from mining. Very few will ever do the extra hassle of a pointless G7. Look at lode for example, they are US domestic company, so surely they only did the G7- wrong. They did both, and it was a waste of money for nothing. The same idea apples to feasibility studies. Not every single miner does a scoping study, a pre feas, a feasibility, and then a definitive feasibility study because that would be absurdly expensive and is unnecessary if the results from the first few are so wildly economic it renders number crunching irrelevant. The whole idea of both the reports and studies is to derisk the project and get estimates that are -+ 100% into a realm where the economics begin to make sense and the risk is manageable. We are way beyond that.
If you truly believe that 100 oz/t surface outcrops, multiple 3rd party assays, huge nuggets, visible gold in drill core, previous UG mine production in excess of 20 oz/t, and large fields of at surface drilled ore worth 3-100x their nearby profitable peers means that this is highly risky and unlikely to succeed or find any gold then this might not be the industry for you. Mining always involves a degree of risk and speculation. I have speculated on hundreds of juniors and Mexus was among the least risky because of the obvious merits of their project and the greed of their neighbours.
The sec guide stuff is just nitpicky beyond words. I sincerely hope you read all the complaint letters and recognize how absurd some of the objections are. I am a mining company earning a profit from mining operations yet now I earn all my money from "exploration activities" aka what every other miner loses money on and no one has ever made a cent on. Makes sense. They are obviously post exploration but do to the bureaucracy must be labelled as exploration, such an obvious miss-characterization helps nobody. I appreciate what the SEC is trying to do (mining companies are risky) but they let literally 1000s of obvious scams slip through their ranks, ignore and collude with big firms, and then attempt to regulate and micromanage an industry they have no expertise in whatsoever. It would be nice if the 43-101 and reporting standards included an AISC number that is comparable across companies, instead the SEC just assists in making all these numbers more complex and meaningless by arbitrarily changing definitions and changing the way everything is accounted. What this means is every company has to be evaluated independently and that is usually done on some kind of objective, international scale (Canadian NI43-101) instead of an arbitrary American (sec/g7) one.
There is no reason aside from placating the sec to chose a G7 over a 43-101. Some companies waste time and money and do both, that is their prerogative.
I have pointed out mining scams like SRGE (I remember your ID) before and taken lots of flak for it; MXSG is not one of them. It is in the other camp, an obvious winner and potentially a significant near term producer. They have already made mining history and they haven't even started yet. I was skeptical at first too but all my legitimate concerns either fell away or are eclipsed by the stock's obvious potential.
