cruuuunnnnch !, page-2

yep cb25, just like the recent pump has been long term thinking in action...
i'm pretty sure this sort of thing has been posted about before the more recent pages and pages of back slapping set in, pushing these points to the bottom of the pile.
i.e. ctindale's point on the notion of 'the churn'.
of course, then there were disagreements all over the park.

funny how rau mention the topo stuff (in recent ann's) as a reason for the delay with amaya feasibility...
no resource geo worth his/her salt would run numbers in a resource estimate without survey pickups, otherwise the whole show needs to be readjusted. this is not a minor potential problem. so in these late stages, rau just needs survey confirmation of borehole positions???
what a load of rubbish.
the topo stuff is most likely for waste/tailings siting in very steep terrain, the sort of thing no competent feasibility statement would disregard (don't forget a feasibility study is not just a resource estimate). If they are confirming borehole positions of data used in the resource estimate at this late stage, incompetency is highly likely in my opinion.
maybe, these topo comments are a result of a late stipulation related to delivery of the feasibility (from the competent person/s commisioned by rau).
either that, or just an ordinary excuse for the rau shareholder 'peasants', who may not be aware of the implications of such a statement.
we'll see i spose.