Ann: Major Extension At Mount Hope Central - 36m @ 2.2% Cu, page-86

Thanks for the reply. You're free to interpret GF's post anyway you like, however your interpretation will inherently be biased as a holder.

Its clear that GF is trying to parallel the potential economics between the deposits despite using qualifiers. Note: he specifically uses the word "similarities" and then proceeds to state the projected costs and free cashflow of HGO, and then "if Carnaby toll treat then capex and other figures might be in the right order of magnitude". So he's clearly stating the economics might be similar!

Ok for anyone to make projections, but when a poster tries to postulate similar economics for a toll treatment project with no infrastructure and no funding vs a project which has its own plant, infrastructure and funding already in place, the poster either has no idea what they are talking about or are intentionally trying to mislead the audience.

Which brings me to your first point "Not sure why questioning the genuineness and motives of the op is necessary, especially in what is essentially an anonymous public forum".
When an influential poster has a history of cross-promoting their stocks, twisting the truth and making bold statements which have no evidence to back them up, then its valuable to expose their tactics, especially on an anonymous forum where there are no serious repercussions for unethical behaviour.

Cheers