Sailor this is an excerpt from an email i sent to a shareholder
it is not just that everything is on the table...I suspect they have considered the sale of snowfield…he wouldn’t have vaguely referenced a sell off of a company asset otherwise…
and in my books snowfield is the only company asset worth selling. Now maybe they can’t get a fair price for it because of its geographical situation…. I don’t know
But he wouldn’t have mentioned the possibility of the sale of an asset if they had studied that proposal and then totally dismissed it. Who knows what his intent was. Is he signaling other miners that snowfield might be for sale for the right price…is he trying to force the analytic community to include a marketable evaluation of snowfield in their analysis of the companies value.
Is he signaling his disgruntled message board shareholders that he does recognize the value of snowfield .. and that he is taking measures to have some significant value for it included in the share price. I’m running out of steam. He did not launch such a vague reference just to see how it would resonate. There is a reason for his reference to the potential sale of a company asset. Maybe more than one… I am glad he is now able to do more than work to get the mine up to speed…
PS
as an after thought he might be making his preliminary move to emulate rudy fronk's marketing of deep storage gold over at seabridge