That's a fantastic reply, exactly what I enjoy about HC... just when i think maybe go easy and agree with some unrealistic valuation to be kind, the thread proves once again that bears and bulls just can't mix.
I wasn;t available for the live zoom, anyway, I'm never going to jump in with questions I don;t have just because some numpty says so. "piss or get off the pot... cowardly"... wtf. I dont have any questions for management, only opinions. Haven't posted anything resembling a question so far without it being rhetorical or proffering the probable answer it myself. Ask your own questions... which of the two soft questions were yours btw?
Thomas said" there are established met flowsheets to apply at Dante"... that means just what I'm doing Doh! Take a long-studied material as Fe-Ox reefs are, then apply standard processing techniques and range of recoveries, payabilities etc to get an answer. Kirby isn;t going to re-invent the wheel, he is going to consider a small range of possibilities to results from early met work and see what falls out. Just because Dante has Cu and PGE instead of Ni to go with Ti-V-Fe-Ox doesn;t mean it's some weird new thing, just that it's 'unique'...
Yes, in light of historical drilling and studies that proved the basal reefs at Hyperion and Crius (along strike outside tenement) were part of a large, continuous layered mafic intrusion were Cu-PGE-Au reefs... I find the history of communicating Dante Reefs as PGE-Au only, with a theory "they developed" there may be magmatic Cu at depth, then taking 6 months of drip feeding out evidence there might be Cu, until flying up in an excited rush to show 'surprising Cu in drill chips" and then announce a new "magmatic-Cu discovery at Dante Reefs" disturbing.... so what? Just my opinion, you and the rest of the thread find it quite satisfactory, is a difference of opinion now defamation as you keep threatening? Get off your high horse.
Let's be clear, unlike you I've been following resource stocks from a basis of industry experience for decades. I'd need all day to explain the history of how, what and when met work and results are released to the market depending on how good or poor it is working out. For example, a hard rock REE project in WA I was once >2 years late releasing met work update having said in 2019 it would be coming shortly, because it wasn't good so they kept trying new things hoping for a step change improvement... good news ir reported quickly, bad news is held back long time is my experience, what's yours? Please don;t try and school me in REE or Nb, it's become a special interest of mine.
"And let's not compare the depths of the two - shallow for TM1, 1.5km in Bushveld"... I'm talking about the Bushveld Ti-V-Mag mines, all open pits, not PGE reefs... doubt very much Dante has the ore-value for u/g mining (Exploration Target to 250m deep... shallow pits, laugh out loud)...
"Do you genuinely believe that your desktop study "might swing the outcome" of whether Dante is going to be a world beater or not?With all due respect, are you delusional?"... not at all, and that's exactly the sort of challenge I love. In numbers i trust, in people you do... just remember, cults of personalities often end badly for all concerned.
Must get that desktop study finished, chin chin
Expand
