I would say that AZY has by far the better exploration ground (shallow cover, far larger area, greatest strike length of the Winu-Havieron prospective geological structure, an easily accessible, un-mined, expanding multi-million ounce open-pittable gold resource at Minyari, and a potentially world-class gold prospect currently being tested at Parklands).
ButGreatland has the only established mine infrastructure and, at these unprecedented gold prices, a decent relict ore resource in the old mine at Telfer, plus a world-class, but deeply covered, technically difficult and currently inaccessible (due to decline water problems) orebody at Havieron.
But it's not just a question of 'who has the best ground'. It's a question of 'who is best positioned to realise the potential of the ground that they have, in a timely manner, given the volatility of the gold price and the aggressive climate of M & A activity'.
And I would say that both companies are very good and fairly evenly matched in that respect. But the pace and strategy of Antipa is clear, obvious and understated, whilst with Greatland, promotion prior to the ASX listing is the order of the day, so that you only ever hear the positives, and nothing about how they might be struggling in some areas on the technical side.
Antipa has far more upside leverage and more downside risk.
Greatland is more vulnerable to the gold price and the fortunes of war that are underground mining.
As someone I once knew well was wont to quote:
'There's many a slip between cup and lip', and: 'The race is to the swift!'
(None of which is intended as investment advice).
Expand
(20min delay)