@arsenic it seems that you miss my main point: confirming others...

@arsenic it seems that you miss my main point: confirming others experiences with Mike. He does not respond to correspondence of shareholders. It seems that his "disdain" is not confined to certain individuals. When he eventually did respond to me (I have a very substantial shareholding) he put out a bland and standard reply, not bothering giving commentary or rebuttals to points of concern raised. Hence my conclusion that he must be one of the laziest CEO's around.

I know exactly the role of scoping studies. My points on concern are also not simply "details". Choosing longhole open stoping as the exclusive mining method for the type of deposits at Antler is not detail, but fundamental. It impact the level of operating cost and the degree of dilution. The conversion of resources to mineable inventory is also fundamental. There is an increase of 20% in tonnages, which combined with 95% mining recovery indicates dilution of approx. 25%. Yet the amount of metal in the mineable inventory is only between 8% (for Au) to 14% (for Pb) lower. In other words, the waste is assumed to hold some grade. Yet the grade-resource relationship shows differently. An increase in cut-off grade from 0.5% to 2.0% CuEq. gives a drop of only 4.1% for Cu and 4.5% for Zn. In other words, the borders of mineralisation are sharp and the waste with virtually no grade. There is a fundamental inconsistency here.

There are many other fundamental issues, but beyond what should be in this comment. My observations are that Mike is too lazy to react at these. A scoping study may have less accuracy in inputs that feasibility study, but are not fantasy exercises. They should be grounded in reality and internally consistent. At this point the scoping study is flawed and a CEO is not competent or too lazy to comment on this, or better still give rebuttals.