mxr holders should closely look at ero reports. mxr have a...

mxr holders should closely look at ero reports. mxr have a substantial holding in ero, and both companies have similar prospects in relation to alluvial gold mining. both companies have a similar address, and the same people seem to be mentioned in reports.

ero, in their last quarterly mention the fillowing]

" Significant operating cost improvements,
and cashflows, could be achieved by the addition of a new
100 lcm/hr processing plant at a capital cost of between
$300,000 and $450,000. "

how does this compare with a mxr report in early 2009, which includes the following

"The capital cost of the expanded operation is
currently estimated at about $1.5 million, "

and

"This is principally achieved by a large
scrubber trommel, which has a feed throughput
of initially 80, then 100 and later possibly 120
bcm/hour"


there is not much difference between bcm and lcm. how can the same people (most likely) working from the same office, come up with totally different numbers.

watso assumes that the directors keep on collecting their fees

oh - the ero report mentions that they could make $1m per year - which is great - but how much have they forked out for this privilege. the upside, for shareholders, is that there is a lot more alluvials , than what the company paid for