Originally posted by gassed
Jezzathegeo. Is that for geologist? Anyway, have you read Page 6 of the 31 December 2015 QR?
I'm also awaiting the results from those 51 holes recently completed in Sherwood and "expected" "in December". Very interested!!!
But, the proof of the pudding (what the majority of us are happy to wait for) is what the nett result will be from that 100,000 mt deal with Lilac.
I can't see how shareholders could expect more to be making their decisions regarding the prospects of this company. They are not going to get anything more definitive than what has, and will be, released by the company.
Let's get mining so all of that "possible" conjecture can be settled one way or another.
Are your concerns based merely on semantics? With respect, I'd say that very LT holders would be bored out of their brain getting involved with those concerns that you have raised.
Nope I'm not a geologist, as such, but I've been around. I had an association with Primary, back in the day, hence the interest. Even been to Georgetown, I recommended bulldozing the mill and building a proper one but retaining the licences, which are more valuable. However, if ya reckons that ya can get >3,5g/t (or whatever it is) on haulage to the Towers ("interesting" mill, chaps) then good on ya.
Why not impress me. Identify a single Material mining project developed by an ASX listed junior in the last ten years that succeeded in at least repaying capital , without a Feasibility Study.
