Met test report #34 posted previously was dated 3 Oct 2016. It...

Met test report #34 posted previously was dated 3 Oct 2016. It seems management sat on this report (probably say it wasn't final - although looks pretty final) waiting for the resource to be finalised. Management thought a big resource number would partially hide the poor recovery results. So they went for a big low grade number!. This shows ineptitude imo - the project needs grade to support BIOX/roaster and get a ~90% recovery. I am sure there is a decent scale smaller open pit capable of +2g/t. Time for a higher quality MD and technical team to be assembled.