I'm not sure if the CEO knew, all along, the costs were to be dramatically higher ... weren't both the prefeasibilty and PEA both completed independent companies? (Please correct me if I'm wrong ... just asking.) If so, isn't it likely the CEO was caught off-guard as everyone else?
Unfortunately, early in the game, I tried to do some research and found that PEAs are generally reasonably accurate so I did not see reason to think otherwise at the time. There was certainly margin for some error given the good economics.
Yes, much later in the game, Larry said 'no surprises' when he was asked specifically about the pre-feas. But what is he supposed to say prior to the numbers publicized? ... would it not be insider-information to tell someone the numbers are going to be much worse than anticipated? (Yes, Larry could have told everyone sooner, but the high costs would remain still the fundmental issue.)
Depending on the forecast, the process is economic, so I don't believe this was a scam from the start ... to scam the public, why go to great length to find a very innovative process that independent engineering firm says is very economic (depending price forecast).
And, yes, significant funds are required to build the mine, but if the payback is -- say -- one to two years and a mine life much longer, wouldn't it be easy to find a partner for an offtake agreement ... I don't think the intention was ever to raise funds via issuing shares. With such a payback, there would be many bidders. With a market cap at 7 million, and project potentially worth billions (I don't have this number offhand), there is certainly room for revenue-sharing.
(Not sure if you were ever into XRA, but in comparison, look at the 5 billion in capital costs vs market cap of $130 million ... that's a lot of capital required there too but its also the world's largest known unmined gold deposit. Are you against this stock as well, becuase of the required funding?)
Also, I don't think the whole property has been explored such that the mine life could be much greater ... the company had to balance exploration of sufficient territory vs saving funds so there seems much more potential from this regard as well.
I characterize this company not as a pie-in-the-sky but betting on the home-run champion (say you 10 times your bet if he gets an RBI) ... if he strikes out, you can't think after-the-fact it was foolish to expect anything out of him ... just bad luck for that at bat as the fundamentals were there. Like the homerun hitter, AMY has huge potential (based on many independent scouts) but some costs escalated just enough to have the ball caught deep in left field ... had the costs been better, AMY could have been a 10-20 bagger so it was a good risk-reward that I don't mind having taken. Now my shares have depreciated a lot and there is still potential, so I don't see much reason to sell now ... I'm not going to bet the farm, of course.
This is my thought process and I'm no mining expert by any means, so I've made any obvious bad judgement here I'm all ears... hindsight is always 20:20.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
