CAPEX & COMEX, page-30

Sara Alicia was cheap ~$125,000 iirc.

Azure did not come close to demonstrating the economics of that tenement. Far from it. So I’m not sure why they would expect to receive more than the original purchase price (assuming they can even find a buyer willing to pay that)

But that’s besides the point, because the real loss of value arises from all the wasted time and investment involved in reaching this point.

When Teck exercised its claw-back in Dec 2016, and Azure was forced to seek new opportunities, it had $13m in the treasury.

Azure then spent 9 months or so poking around Mexico for new projects. After it had finally settled on Oposura and Sara Alicia in September the kitty had fallen ~$6m.

One cannot simply attribute the cost of this tenement to the measley purchase price, it’s the cost of the corporate apparatus, salaries, sub-contractors, field testing etc, all of which occurred prior to any drilling taking place. This all totaled many millions of dollars

And I don’t know how much exactly the company spent on its drilling campaign at Sara Alicia, but this obviously also added to the cost. The company spent the remaining money, and then held another cap raise and will shortly spend all of that money too

Dolce says Sara alicia was a tremendous success because the company ‘proved that the tenement contains minerals’, but we already knew this. The actual purpose of the project was to demonstrate its economics and develop the resource, but that never occurred

sara alicia seems to have gone the same way as prom and so many other azure projects. Once the focus of so much fanfare and excitement, but subsequently discarded and relegated to an infrequently visited page on the company website