the next nst? article out, page-6

the market will remain skeptical about this project. It got off to a very bad start in 1977:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Uf8QAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YZIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4747,3948746&dq=blue+spec+gold&hl=en

the problem then was serious overestimation of grade

and of course the refractory ore

although this is old news and technology has changed for the better, some things havent changed.

Firstly 75% of the resource is inferred. You can't bank inferred resources and to get those inferred to indicated may cost a lot, so if you can't project finance this then there will be serious shareholder dilution

however there are other issues such as the fact that Blue Spec reef starts pinching out at the end of the "proven" reserve block defined by previous operators.

At this point where is starts to pinch out the mineralised reef and rocks that formed the shoot were heavily fractured and to dangerous to channel sample the backs despite the very strong grade.

They were successful with drilling a few years ago finding new structures at depth, but still significant issues , better form elsewhere, this is high risk despite the grade, the ground condtions can be very expensive to sort out and make safe. A good example is RMS Wattle Dam bonanza mine which also had very poor ground conditions and was very expensive to mine, only profitable due to extremely high grade

that is a better comparison for Blue Spec, Not Daisy Milano or Paulsens