Mining? When can a company say more than they are "looking at a...

Mining?
When can a company say more than they are "looking at a decision to mine by X date" within the frame work set up by the ASX and ASIC? I don't know the answer to this Q and suspect care is needed in all statements.

Think it was last year ASIC changed the rules on scoping studies being announced. They made the hurdles much higher which I suspect means making statements about mining have to be very circumspect.

This is an example of the ASX's response to a company's statement made in 2016. Stuck in my mind and could find it relatively easily. Probably many other examples which show how much care is needed - eg twitter sagas for AVZ last month. AZS certainly don't need a please explain note from the ASX.....

Another reason is not to promise too much and miss hitting a deadline for mining when so many things can come up. The market can be very severe on missed dates.


Snail Pace to production?
Can you, Soothsayer, provide many examples of mines being made from near scratch to initial production in 3 years? I acknowledge Opasura has a lot of historical data that should make the time frame somewhat shorter. Does pre Jorc work really help that much?

Work to date:
Negotiations begun, and acquisition in Feb/August 2017 respectively.
10000m of drilling and some metallurgy done by late March 2018.


If you haven't done so already do some research into end of drilling to mineral resource, PEA/scoping, DFS and see how AZS's schedule would stack up. I will do my own research as well but suspect AZS will be near industry standard if they tick boxes on schedule.

Admin and Staff costs?
Can you support the argument that AZS Admin and staff costs are high relative to other similar companies? Actual figures? I suspect they are but haven't looked into it ... yet.

The approximate $50K per month you mention is what it is and probably not going to be changed easily.
How do shareholders get the packages revised?
A SH revolt? Board Change? Voluntary response by staff following SH outrage? Other?

Can't say I like the levels of remuneration and the presence of a majority of AZS's board on another company's board (OVL).

I did ask Wolf Martinick about being on more than one board in general terms after a meeting. 'No conflict and sufficient time for both' broadly paraphrases his reply.

Certainly not unusual to be on multiple boards and power to them as long as they do a good job for each company and by extension shareholders. Judging from your posts on value for money from AZS's board you don't feel this is the case. Can you change anything? What value is there in saying it in more than a couple of posts?




AZS and other exploration companies have been around for 10 years or more and as I say almost every time I respond to a post of yours - are they much different to the others?