Twitter and OGX Related Media, page-412

Oh Pete. I must admit , i do find your posts amusing. Im not a newbie. I was posting on OGX back in 2012, what about you? But why do i need to justify why i have an opinion? I appreciate that other posters treat my comments with respect and provide their opinion on my interpretation but Im disappointed (but not surprised) that you prefer to play the man rather than the facts - and you dont seem to let the facts get in the way of your arguments!! Let me break it down into the yes or no type questions that Salt asked me earlier:

Did the company raise $12.1m? Yes or no?
i think the answer is no - they issued $12.1m worth of shares and received commitments for the balance (which is about 8.6m i think). My post wasnt based on what other posters said - my post said that the last publicly reported cash position (march qtly) stated that they had not received this balance from investors. No doubt they will receive it, or take legal action to make sure they do, but it will be for a total raising of ~8.6 million, not 12. Im not saying restructuring the deal with the vendors from a cash + shares to all shares is a bad thing - on the contrary - its a good thing. however, the company did not raise 12m they raised $8m and restructured the balance from cash and shares to all shares.

Has the company done any new exploration this year - yes or no?
I think the answer is no. They repeated panel sampling at cuca, cascavel re-released tinteiro and eliseo past results and twinned a troy hole drilled years ago at antenna/xupe/

Yes they raised money, no debate there.

Does the new mill provide increased recoveries? Yes or No?
You say they have 'new hammer mills that actually extract the gold'. how do you know that? have they reported recoveries from the new set up? or do you know something that we dont?Well - lets see. Firstly, the OGX board has previously said that independent tests showed they were already getting +80% of the gold. refer to june 17 qlty report where the board quotes independent test work showing 'the processing plant was recovering gold from the feed and not losing excessive gold to the tails." avg grade about 1.25g/t in tails. So what makes you say that the old mill wasnt working - and more to the point - how do you know that the new ones are working better????? I cant find that announcement. Wheres the evidence for how much better the new recoveries are?
For the record, my view is that hammer mills probably will provide a better grain size distribution to optimise g.r.g so i think its a good move. However i dont think that the boosting recoveries by whatever incremental improvement the hammer mills will provide is the key to success. helpful, yes but not decisive.

cutting costs. well thats a great sound bite but i think shareholders probably want results . costs were cut before if i recall (compare costs in sept 16 qtly to march 17 qtly for example) but then you had the new chairman complaining in the annual report that nothing got done when costs were cut! So lets see what has been achieved this quarter (there was a nice check list the board put in the march 18 qtly for us to judge performance by...). So lets see what was achieved in the june qtr with the cost cutting and then lets see what the next quarters costs are now that they say they are running a few shifts before you go slapping anybody on the back. Again, dont get me wrong- i think the commitment that J Gray (spelling corrected) has shown by not getting paid is great and shows he truly has shareholders best interests at heart. im not complaining about that. good on him. but before you go congratulating people - lets see some numbers (costs, results, production, recoveries etc etc)

your other point - gold being produced ' FINALLY' . Really? Maybe? Well again, unless you know something we dont we havent seen that yet. hopefully 1 august.