He kept saying they think like shareholders, and how shareholders would think is -
1/ "And ideally, to see if we could create an early development option".
He goes on to say -
2/ "After 250,000 metres.....we understand the deposit, we have an early development option BUT"
Ok, so they have the early development option, which is apparently the ideal and what shareholders want. The big BUT was apparently that they haven't found the extent of the deposit.
So why the strategy change then? Mine the open pit, get the cash flow going, you've stripped out the surface Gold and can then go underground. Just saying that they changed the strategy to keep defining the underground is all very well, but why?
2/ But they've changed strategy again. He's said they've drilled 250,000 metres to get where they are now.....and now they are off doing exploratory drilling off in other areas of the project. Why not focus all the drilling on defining the underground resource beneath the open pit, since that was apparently the new strategy? Once they've defined the open pit (tick) and the underground, they can start mining. It's not an early development option - which is apparently the ideal - but it's a focus on mining the defined areas rather than perpetually exploring.
If after 250,000 metres they are still nowhere near defining Bombara (encompassing open pit and underground) how much drilling will it take to rigourously define the entire 30 kilometre long Gold system that he is touting? Maybe 10 million metres as a conservative estimate?
Why did he keep saying "the market doesn't understand this", "the market doesn't unsderstand this"....seems arrogant.
Maybe the market understands that they've passed up on pursuing the early development option, and then they've passed up on a later development option by focussing on definition of Bombara, and now they look to be more interested in continuing to make discoveries elsewhere in the system.
The bloke is a geo who likes exploring. He is obviously not a mine builder.
Expand
