Catalyst used an anti-conservative gold price in estimating...

Catalyst used an anti-conservative gold price in estimating their resource, A$2800, which is well over the market price and at substantial odds with industry practice.

I am amazed that you don't find that 'substantive'. Pray tell, what DO you base your investment decisions on?

How is ANY of the following non-relevant, or not substantive:

1) Vango/Catalyst Marymia resource shell(s):
1 million ounces, assuming A$2800 gold priceand 2023 labor costs
1 million ounces, assuming A$2500 gold price, and 2020 labor costs

(reference: ASX announcement at head of this thread)


Superior Gold Plutonic resource shell(s):
5.9 million ounces including 630k reserve, assuming A$1950/oz gold price, and 2022 labor costs

reference: https://ceo.ca/@newswire/superior-gold-increases-mineral-reserves-by-66-and

2) As Petersburg posts, there are substantial concerns with actual mining of 500k ounces of Catalyst's 1 million ounce resource. Specifically 410k oz Trident (heavy water infiltration), and 89k K1 pit (compacted asbestos from when K1 was used as a tailings repository).

Catalyst just bought an ore body. If facts about the resource statement of that ore body aren't substantive to investing....what the heck is?