I found that what caught my attention to invest in MCO was a...

I found that what caught my attention to invest in MCO was a different approach to current Gold mining techniques that seemed to be dominating the market (low grade high tonnage)

MCOs aproach is high grade low tonnage, it was working and making a healthly profit some 30, 50, 60 100 years ago and IMO will do in todays market.

AAM - failed low grade high tonnage
NAV - failed low grade high tonnage

can not compare these to with MCO as they have different mining techniques


Just found this snippet from a year ago, which runs in line with my way of thinking (a better grip on cost controls)with this company MCO.

http://www.theaureport.com/pub/co/2243

Richard Karn, Emerging Trends Report (9/14/10) "In this threatening investment climate, we prefer the inherent flexibility and cost controls attendant to a high-grade, low throughput gold mining operation to a large open-cut project that relies on economies of scale for success because we view the former as the more defensive and defensible of the two approaches.

Morning Star has but one focus�high-grade reef gold in the Woods Point Dyke Swarm, and the money both to develop its namesake mine and that in other historic mines in the area. . .successful completion of its March 2010 option-share conversion puts MCO in a cashed-up (+/- A$7.5 million), no-debt position, including an essentially paid for A$3.5M, 80,000-tpy Gekko onsite gravity plant that will enable the recovery more than 90% of the free milling gold without chemical processing. . .What we find particularly compelling about Morning Star is the combination of it being a cashed-up company with no debt that is in production and has a number of very prospective, self-funded exploration projects underway. . .we believe this is a recipe for tremendous profit acceleration."