Check out the difference between the pit outline details in my...

Check out the difference between the pit outline details in my prior post from the previous RED management and the one presented this week. Do you see how much less detail there is?

That's typical of Tonkin and the old SLR board. They provide no detail. All the detail in the prior pit outline has been reduced to one modest line about the pit being greater than 10 years and that the strip ratio is 3.78. This is lower than what was stated previously which was greater than 5. I presume this is because the cutoff grade is 0.3g/t not 0.5g/t?

And why are they quoting 1.2 million ounces not 2.3 ounces of reserves at KOTH which is what the reserves statement from last year states? Is Stage 4 and Stage 5 being dropped from reserves or what? I fail to see how it could be any less economical given gold is $1,000 higher in AUD than when the first pit outline was provided.

I ask fellow shareholders - wouldn't you want management selling KOTH as a 2 million ounce pit with a mine life of 14 years rather than 10 years?

So what's going on here? Why isn't management promoting reserves greater than 2 million, outline stripping ratio by timeframe and promoting the longevity of the mine in the best possible way?

This lack of information is typical of the lazy board running the company.

The other area of weakness is the lack of exploration at Deflector and Mt Monger. It's beggars belief that Tonkin has let reserves run so low at Deflector. Furthermore, why doesn't the company split resources between Deflector and Deflector Southwest so we can see what resources are left.

Most other companies have released their June 25 reserves statement by now but of course not RED. They should have had it signed off before Denver. It's just lazy to turn up to one of world's premier gold conferences with a reserves and resources figure over 12 months old. More evidence of how pathetic and lazy the board are.

Let's hope there are no surprises in the upcoming reserves and resources statement. If was going to be a downgrade it should be Sugar Zone but of course that would be admitting Tonkin, and the old board are useless idiots for buying it.

Re the discussion on the other thread about stakeholders. The first stakeholders the board has a fiduciary duty to are shareholders. The idea that mining is held back to maximize mine life rather than profit is acting against the best interest of shareholders and illegal. The faster the cash is spit out the stronger the company is in terms of takeovers. Had Tonkin and board the not bought Sugar Zone they would have got Gwalia and Tower Hill. But that would require overcoming their laziness and stupidity which is beyond that clown show.

The sooner RED is taken over by a company with a competent management team the better. I do think the assets are undervalued - unfortunately current management are the liability holding the share price back.

GLTA/IMHO