Ann: Priority targets highlight untested potential at Polelle, page-52

First 52 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
hongkie

783 Posts.

299

27/03/24

22:03

Post #: 73092694
Share

Originally posted by RoyE: ↑

Hi Rye, yes gold miners and also other small miners - examples that spring to mind in gold are Dacian, CAI (struggling currently), GCY (near death, put into care and maintenance but re-invigorated by finding Never Never deposit, now called SPR), MOY (receivership), NML (receivership). In base metals/other minerals PAN (receivership), G1A (receivership), 29M (struggling due to flooding & low base metal prices, listed at $2, now $0.36), AIS (struggling to make any money at current base metal prices), Heron with Woodlawn (never fired a shot, almost straight into receivership upon development), the wannabe Potash producers in WA (supposed to be a great new industry, so far a total disaster for shareholders with SO4, KLL and APC all into receivership, potash recoveries not as expected), STA (mineral sands, ? receivership), VEN & MEL (struggling gas developers, wells don't flow the way they were supposed to) etc.

It sounds crazy but IMO the last thing you want to do if you are a small company is go mining . Mining is very, very high risk - fires, seismic, under recoveries compared to budget, operating cost blowouts, capital cost blowouts, floods etc. IMO it's a game for the big boys with deep pockets who can weather the almost inevitable teething issues during mine development, cyclical price environments etc.

So for me nowdays I prefer explorers and I'm looking for the takeover play/payday. If a company does start to develop their project and particularly if they borrow lots of money to do it (which they invariably need to), then I'm likely to sell. Debt = Danger. For me 5+ times bitten = Very shy.

GLTA & DYOR

Expand

Yes, I agree with Rye, if that’s a strategy that works for you RoyE, follow it.

No need to be haranguing it for him either.

GBR Price at posting: 5.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
2 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply