The Golden ThreeSo, based on all of the posts I have read on the three blog sites; everyone seems to agree that the "proof" will lay in the "proof". Meaning that both DLKM and RBYC drill results and RBYC property acquistion pending approval will be the jumping off points necessary to break any current resistance in their respective SP's. Here are my questions:
1. All three companies have different levels of ongoing infrastructure development with Ruby seeming to have the most active projects currently. Why would Ruby, other than money, not be interested in further increasing their stake in the region?
2. The cost of mining production is expensive, we all seem to agree on that. The drill results will demonstrate fiscal feasibility that may or may not justify mining production for the individual companies, we all seem to agree (albeit arguably sometimes) on that. Would it not benefit each of those campanies individually to start production on the best of their respective drill sites prior to any merger, acquisition agreement, etc. to enhance their respective marketability?
3. Rough/coarse gold recovery will only account for 60% to 75% of the total production viability of concentrates processing. The remaining recovery of fine and micro-fine gold can account for as much as 25-40% of the total raw recoverable gold. Artisanal miners have shown this on other sites throughout Eastern Africa. Where will the production of this part of the resource be included in any feasibility report? eg. drill results, production ratios, etc?
4. What we have seen in photos of pans is a very limited perspective on what may actually be in the ground. Gold is nearly never found in close to pure form in its native state (I am not going to beat that horse). What, if any, recovery potential has been planned or discussed regarding any other/additional REM's?