Well done DDBB, great points and some good research, thanks.
And I sincerely hope that you are right, because it would be great for the company, and all of us.
Look, I've been around mining exploration and science for 30 years, and I know how these things go. There are always problematic times at different stages for every project.
I admire the CYM directors and scientists for what they are trying to do, especially around the IP and intellectual technical components of the heap leach research and project. They have great intent.
However, having been a university scientist myself, and having watched and listened closely here to the interviews and presentations, we should all understand the relationship between the success of scientific research for new IP patents, and hubris.
In other words, they need to "come clean" on the success or failure of the scientific research so far, and how this would (probably) impact the Nifty project.
So, .... armed with these suppositions, the company needs to explain why the decision was taken to not proceed with a new build, when they were enthusiastic about this possibility some months back.
1. Was the decision made on purely financial grounds?
2. Was it made because the recent drilling has returned lower than expected grades?
3. Was it made because their financiers and backing would not come up with the cash?
4. Was it made because there are some potential limitations with the (new) science surrounding the technology and heap leach IP?
5. Was it made for other reasons, not yet divulged, that have caused some reticence amongst the scientific team working on the IP.
In truth, there is probably a combination of factors. My best guess is a mixture of all these things, but primarily a combination of lower grades, lower exploration success, lower (and slower) copper production from new leaching IP technology, slower progress of scientific success with the new leaching IP, and other factors.
There are many questions.
The market also seems to want answers, because the stock price has effectively plunged now from 37c to 18c - and this is very clearly NOT a positive indication in the eyes of the market, and some say the market is never wrong, at least in the longer term.
With a plunge from 37c to 18c it's morally problematic for anyone to push false hopes on other honest and decent and fair minded people who read our posts. We should be objective. And we should be good scientists, and do as they all do - ask questions. And then let all our friends here know that they should pursue the answer to those questions, especially if the questions are pertinent. This is how we help people who may not have access to the research sources that we have.
So, .... where are the answers to our CYM questions, and what is the plain open truth here now?
It's a fair question, without being openly negative, or anything else but intellectually honest.
The problem is that Nifty crucified two previous miners. And these guys then stepped in, believing in their own abilities and science to develop a new scientific process, for a new intellectual property patent (IP) that would solve the previous problems with Nifty. This is the CRUX of the company, and of the matter !!!
So the simple question is - has the scientific development of this IP been confirmed ?
Will the company answer this?
My sense is that the company will say they are still working on it?
I don't want to hear a response like that of a politician though.
I want some science.
And I want to know if this science has been the reason why they have changed tack, and opted for refurbishing an old plant, rather than building a new one.
In other words, are they having problems validating the new science?
Has Nifty defeated it's third owner, like it has ruined the previous two?
These are fair and open questions, asked simply and honestly, with no other intent.
They are simple questions, and the answers only need to be honest and truthful - not enthusiastic, not hyperbolic, just plain low-key honest.
Gw
Expand
