Dino, I have never claimed to have any particular experience in investing. I do, however, know how to interpret drill results.
You raise some interesting questions....why was there an "independent geologist" wandering around the mine site when you were there? Who did he represent? How do you know he was actually "independent"?
And why would you even bother bringing a single sample back to assay? A single sample does not tell much of a story. Same goes for the other single sample assay obtained by another investor. Pretty much useless. Especially since they were collected by two non-professionals (not a knock on you and the other investor, but do you either of you have any geological or mining engineering training or expertise?)
As for how thorough my investigation has been? Well, my interest in Mexus began when they issued the drill map and results table for the drilling that Argo completed, before they packed up and left the JV. In 10 minutes of looking at the map and the drill data with the bogus "average" they came up with, I could tell that someone at Mexus was either stunningly incompetent, or was committing deliberate fraud. I am still not certain which is true.....perhaps a combination of the two.
Then, MarMar came along. I received information from someone with eyes on the ground who told me that MarMar was not self-funding, and was in fact deeply in debt. They told me that MarMar was poorly equipped, and that most of their equipment was junk, or poorly maintained. They told me that MarMar was incompetent, and their personnel that were touted as "experts" were actually far from expert in anything. They told me that Mexus was secretly subsidizing MarMar behind the scenes, at the same time claiming to investors that MarMar was self-funding. Finally, they told me that MarMar was making a mess of the minesite, with oil spills everywhere, junk, trash, etc.
So, turns out that most or all of that was true about MarMar, wasn't it?
Then Mexus did their own drilling. I have to give them credit, I never thought they would actually do any drilling. However, they did the exact same thing with the new data - created an average of assays using select intervals, that were not the same width in each drill hole. And assuming that the grades were continuous and comparable between holes. Apparently nobody at Mexus has ever heard of the term "weighted average", something a first year mining engineering student learns about.
Bottom line is that results from the two drilling events were grossly mischaracterized by Mexus - BOTH TIMES. And even if you ignore the way Mexus handled the data, anybody with a passing knowledge of exploration geology could take one glance at the data and see that the results are miserable.
Okay, so maybe that's just my opinion...but where's the 3D modeling and 43-101 report to present the opinion of the Mexus mining professionals? Missing in action? They decided to go ahead and mine without even the most basic attempt to define a resource of some kind?
We could also talk about PT's flaunting of SEC disclosure rules (Form 4's filed weeks and weeks after share sales), his ridiculous cost per ounce estimates, his bogus tonnage and grade figures, and what appears to be selective disclosure to certain long-term investors. And how about those "finders" that he employs to help sell private placements? They aren't working for free, are they? Getting a percentage or some kind of fee makes them brokers. Unlicensed brokers.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
