Rhazzle, thanks for your reply and hope this is helpful.
Nothing like throwing up a generalisation to commence the discussion...
"low cost gold production" means you cannot mine gold more cheaply than when you have shallow open-cut access. We have a shallow open-cut mine."
It goes without saying that open-cut mining is cheaper than underground mining! I really wanted to hear some factual analysis as to why LNY's mining and production can be described as "low cost" when out of $32 million last year in gold sales, LNY retained about $6 million (by memory) after only the mining and processing costs were deducted. That to me is not "low cost gold production". And, we don't even know what the 2020/21 campaign is going to cost!
I was addressing OPEX as opposed to CAPEX. I acknowledge the mitigation of capital-intensive costs associated with being a fulltime bone fide producer, but thats what could be holding back the company from moving forward and holding back the SP! Having money for further exploration and proving up a resource is great, but the strategy is being implemented at a rate that is killing the SP. Considering where the bulk of the revenue from these "token" mining campaigns goes as opposed into exploration, its no wonder this stock's Mkt Cap is what it is.
"We would have needed bridging capital or 60/90 day accounts for the digging of ore and trucking component."
Sure, but taking into account last year's revenue of $32 million, one would have expected that LNY have some money left. Guess not... given that LNY is sloppy with timelines. Just as well we have Bizz's money at 10% interest to always rely upon to enter the equation. We should always be grateful for small mercies, I guess.
"Of course when we have our on-site plant it will improve the economics but in the meantime the numbers are fine by paying our way with gold which we have in abundance."
I agree in part. Having our own on-site plant will improve the economics out of sight! I also agree that the strategy of "paying our way with gold which we have in abundance" is not a bad one. However, to state that "the numbers is fine" simply confirms that you are someone who is not being realistic, in denial or who wears rose-coloured glasses, IMO.The numbers are atrocious! It seems to meet the status quo whether desired or not by those in charge.
"That is low capital intensity production at its best."
I think your sentence would have been more credible had you left the last three words out of it. For many, so its been representing low capital intensity production at its worst. AIMHO
