Originally posted by jazzmox
Talking about having it both ways how do you prove economic viability without a JORC? A resource statement forms the input numbers for a feasibility statement. Otherwise garbage in, garbage out.
Companies always have an idea or back of the envelope numbers but you can't take those to a financier and they would not be enough for a ML.
I think you guys are clamoring to hope. Hope that AVQ has all these reports that nobody has ever seen. A proper company that has these reports would have announced them via the ASX. Disclosure rules and so forth. Just read any pre-feasibility study
Without pointing to proper announcement that SJ is viable (JORC, feasibility) then SJ remains an exploration asset that is a long way from proper production. Linking newspaper articles or quotes from SIG ministers means nothing and has no bearing in reality
I agree, I would’ve hoped that a resource would have been properly defined by now as i’m sure you do too with your best intentions.
But I think you are missing the point that JORC is a set of regulated Australian standards that may give an indication as to economic viability, but they are not one and the same. That’s like saying that there are no economically viable resources in countries that don’t use JORC as their standards (which is, funnily enough, every country but Australia). So don’t claim that because we don’t have a JORC, that it’s unviable. This is yet to be found out and you know this. In any case, this argument will be put to rest soon enough i’m sure.
