re: Ann: Quarterly Activities Report and Appe...
Dr Daz, don't forget GDY successfully raised tens of millions of dollars – for a 1MW power station, in the middle of nowhere, so there is a precedent for success of such ambition.
However your point is well taken. The BS, or non-acknowledgement of foundered projects, is now tainting perceptions of Copahue, at least for me. The reasoning goes, if EHR is not talking about failings in Africa (and Canada), what are they not revealing about Argentina?
The MT survey is peculiar at this time, so much that I asked about it specifically at the EGM. Why, when the resource is so well defined, with four wells, shallow gradient testing, years of investigation, etc, is a MT survey being done? There was a strong response from Dr Shaw that the core resource is real and ready. The MT survey is aimed at establishing wider foot print; and a more defined, potentially greater resource. All this may cheer financiers, but is the last thing we can attend to right now. My impression is; the MT survey it is an affordable means to achieve an appearance of material progress; with perhaps some planning benefit later down the track. We don’t have the money for serious development, but we still have the lights on. My fear is the resource, despite the verbal assurances of the meeting, is not up to scratch. My reassurance is the positive analysis of geologists in the years preceding EHR.
Folding the SA interests is in line with every other Australian geothermal, it seems to me, in the light of the funding and technology short-falls, a sensible, though humbling, thing to do. Only selling them would make me happier.
EHR Price at posting:
0.4¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
