Hey Berserk,
I think most of the issues, come back to the founder... everything occurred because of him (sure, the board have some blame too, but... then I suppose so does the those who completed the DFS etc). He could have indeed drilled out the MRE to a far greater degree, but for some reason, he was driven to get it into production, a... total repeat of CAI and GCY. Any deposit (especially open pit from what I have seen), that is not properly drilled out, seems to on average, underperform. It's basically that simple.
I am not as concerned about the inclusion of the inferred resource, though in some ways, I would have preferred they 'rip off the band-aid' and have reduced the mine life, to say, 6 years, with stretch goals for the inferred. Either way, it's done now, so I will be waiting eagerly to see them start converting more of into reserves.
I am happy they ended up having to fund it all (except for the small debt facility), as it has meant no hedging, and bank breathing down the next of TIE. Yes, the dilution was heavy, but... for some reason, many investors seem to not view the extra risks of debt, perhaps because it's hard to quantify.
I mean, look at CAI. It's on it's knees because of the debt/hedging.
I watched the money of mine video which discussed TIE, for some reason they seemed to think the Heap Leach is off the cards, I totally disagree.
While I don't expect them to chase it as quickly, it has to be pursued, because it could basically increase production by 50-60% for just $100m in capex.
Like you, I do think the upside is substantial, as it will take very little exploration upside to supercharge it's profitability.
Good luck to all holders.
Expand
