The only thing sitting on this... is the fact of the known problems in having a couple of serious disconnects between the facts and the story that is being told...
You shouldn't expect to get out-performance in the stock price based on "progress" in the business... when the facts don't line up to make any value that otherwise might be inherent in that sort of "progress" being delivered... relevant to the share price in fact.
"Making progress" while moving too slowly toward an inevitable failure doesn't make "progress" not "progress"... but it does still matter more what "progress" means in terms that matter to investors: real "progress" in the business that provides ability to survive and thrive, and not just "progress" for "progress" sake while driving closer to the edge of the cliff ?
They have structured, in parallel, a series of stages in "making progress" side by side with a similar series of time linked stages in events that posture serious obstacles...
They want you to focus on the "progress" and ignore the relevance of the obstacles... ignoring whether or not there is sufficient ability to surmount them... when the rational will recognize that "good news" isn't useful in isolation from the nature of the risks, and the potential for countervailing "bad news"... as when "what you got" in the result isn't quite enough, or isn't timely.
To win the race... you need to know that time matters... and be able to deliver the winning effort in time... otherwise, the effort delivered will result in others winning, progress or not.
On balance, here, that means the value of "progress" can't be weighed until after you have resolved the parallel risks. If you don't know what a timely performance IS, you can't assess whether they are on track to succeed, and win, or on track to lose...
A functional mill will be a good thing... when you see what the average grades ARE, and see what they are on average over time, and see what the volume of throughput is, and see what it is on average over time, and what it costs on average over time, and what it produces in value relative to the debt... over time, and IN time.
They've postured a couple of "single steps" they want you to think are "it"... as the a point from which real value will be generated hand over fist, and thus prove the apparent value of a share.
The reality here, as in any very high risk mining operation, is that proofs of performance need to stand a test of time before you can tell if there is any residual value that will result from the effort being made...
Producing what value in what time relative to what obligations ?
They've been bending over backwards trying to avoid addressing that question, or any of the FACTS in what the inputs and the obligations are. That is generally not a good sign... and I don't find it surprising that you see what you do as a result.
Look at the chart of FGOC and ask why "progress" toward finishing the mill and the actual start up of production didn't make the stock price explode ?
Here, you also don't have the information that they didn't have at FGOC... before...
.JPG)
AI
.JPG)
Market Data 
Markets 
