To no one in particular:
Well, it is obvious that it seems to make more sense at a higher gold price, than at a lower one. Not too many projects were financeable at less than 300 dollar gold anyway.
I don't have too much axe to grind with Millar or such gold projects. It is a matter of pure project economics and where the money is going. It is one thing to say it was a feasibility study, but in order to justify your approach, if you decide to take a different path, you must do another one (feasibility). If he intends to high grade it to 1.5 million ounces, and then cut the ore up into three piles in order to improve recovery, then he had better justify the approach with an independent report which details the mining costs and methods with column leach trials. He knows that. He has spent 6 million. Now he has to make sure he has one to 1.5 million ounces recoverable. If he does, then what he can spend is cut and dried. What he said was that he could do "two mines". A high grade one to get the first ten million, and then upgrade the tonnage to extract all the rest. hmmmmmmm... this is a maybe. Have to study it. His total cost to get going could be more than ten million. He can only spend 30 more million justifiably by back of envelope. Getting it is "all the rub". Getting ten million may be tough. It would be loads easier to get 5 million to drill mystery diamonds in Melville Peninsula.
It might work. When things get to the feasibility stage, everything is known in the stock, and in the company. It is one of those things where mystery and hope benefit, and you don't want too much surety or the project gets boring and a boring price is not what a seller needs.
On the Internet people really get defensive, which you never see in the brokerages. There, if someone expounds out loud, you will never see people "take them on". They will just go around and PM others about the opinion. I find it strange. If one is to bat for a team, it pays to play ball and not fight the umpire, or the pitcher. But the Internet has bred a strange game of calling people into doubt instead of the issues. Anytime I see someone get taken on, it is usually because someone has something at stake. Of course, I can see this. But people have to learn it is a free world, and the most credit goes to they who let that show, and defend that principle first.
I know some stocks that look like they have "got it". Let me remind you here, to beat my own drum, that I ran the Canadian Mining Newsltter for 5 years, and my record on stocks is better than Bishop or Kaiser. It is in print. I would salivate, if I had a large position, to see people try to tell the world that these stocks have no hope, and to keep on telling it. It cannot hurt. In fact, there is, in the long run, no such thing as bad publicity. Let me get 100,000 shares before I ask you to bash them. I am sure some may see the hopelessness of their position clearly.
I always stuck to issues on SI, but I note my detractors would in blind frustration stick to my supposed character, etc.. in order to bolster their case for their stock. I never got into real damaging attack against them, except to note their error, and what flowed from that. I never presupposed they were in the stock for some nefarious purpose, or said so. There is nothing wrong with making money. Or even I suppose, letting people know that you believe black is white, in order to bolster your opinion of some thing, if you supposedly could sincerely believe that. There might be some credibility issues here, but we will let them go.
If we really examine all the promotional stocks, and the non-earning, non-feasibility mining issues, they are ALL monstrous risk. And even my own projects with no hint of fooling oneself, or the slightest prevarication, have scads of unknowns in them, of great magnitude, going up to and possibly including nuclear war, and Indian attack. It would be a foolish, foolish person indeed who in a candid moment did not admit that the stock they play is anything but a pure gamble. Or that anybody's opinion on it, short of the geologists who are paid to be factual, has not a free right of airing, without reservation. Non of us here have any obligation to the other in any way to show our accounts, our proofs, or justify our words to any other forum or venue. It is a bit stickier for a person who writes a newsletter, or advisory service, but I not longer do so, so now claim exemption.
Let's face facts gentlemen, the Internet is free. We all have the right to be right or wrong. The market is pure risk, and no one knows all. Any opinion, no matter how strident, may be correct or false. We may all have agendas, or intents, good and bad.
In this spirit, we should let the chips fall where they may. It is in effect a bucket shop, and if you put your money down, it's your funeral. If you have paid for the Internet and the readers of these posts are your clients, then I beg your pardon. It is sanctimonious and wrong to limit the opinion or attempt to silence dissent, in the name of any kind of propriety. Remember Joseph Stalin? The Inquistion? Myer Rush? New Cinch? The Tel-Bel (now there is on that WSP fans would do well to study!) Geobbels? Bre-X? Let's err on the side of caution in our affairs lest we be lumped on the side of the worsts political propagandists.
Otherwise, we may rest assured that the false negative or positive shall soon enough see Strathcona's report, all shall be known, and until then and perhaps beyond, the character of every person who has the courage to voice an opinion, should remain unimpugned.
EC<:-}
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
