RE:RE:RE:@tradeahead3 questions and answers:
@kuston You know @Tradeahead I'm wrong a lot, probably a lot more then anyone else here. But I can live with that. So 9 days ago I posted some concerns about the NR about some things I heard in the 4/21 interview that just don't make any sense to me. In the last 9 days I've not read anything that calms these concerns, maybe you can take a shot.
1. QH said "To permit a mine,you need to permit each type of rock, fresh rock can be acid forming" So how many types of rock are there? how many permits are needed in the future?
2. "to drill out the whole footprint 20x20 of the deposit because this is a nuggety deposit to mine effectively, have to have resolution to undertake that. Drill out adnaseum" Everyone seems to be saying this was common knowledge, I don't believe that because if it was the financing for it would of been included in the 9/20 financing package at resonible rates. So what could of been the thinking? How could of they mined this without the drill out? Or is there some answer I'm not thinking of?
3. "BC is a nuggety deposit, we need to know where to go mining we need to collect data and submit the data to the mine department for approval" this is the big one! What is he saying here, BC has approval already what new approval is needed? What does "nuggety" have to do with new approval? @Tradeahead @kuston. I do not know if I can, but I can give it a try :). About your questions.....
1) I do not know enough about the permitting details in Australia to answer that with precision. However, I do not see the basis for any concerns here. QH just needs to plan well ahead of actual mining, and I can easily accept his argument about having to start the process now as opposed to later. You do have to get ahead of these things.
2) In all fairness what you state here is not completely off the mark. It was known, years ago, that the gold mineralization at BC would be variable in nature. I will have to venture a guess that it was originally estimated that visual grade control would suffice. And in the technical report just now, it was suggested that a formal grade control drilling program would in fact be the right way to go about it, upgrading the resource in the process. This is in shareholders interest as I see it, though. Having a better defined mineral resource, will add to the value proposition and make the company interesting to another type of shareholder (those fixated on proven & probable resources in particular), which should presumably ultimately increase NVO's market value, and so will an optimized mining plan based on the quantitative data, ultimately yielding better grades. Now, could you blame someone that they did not arrive at the grade control conclusion at an earlier point in time? Perhaps, but to what end? Nobody has perfect foresight. We are here to make money, not to pin blame (well, most of us anyway I guess ;o). As I see it, the minute it is being determined, it is also being acted upon, and that is exactly as it should be.
Nobody likes dilution, nor do I, but what most people seem to miss completely is this question of paramount importance: "What is the return on the capital raised?". We do not know this yet, of course, but say the stockprice rises X% due to deposit oriented investors coming aboard, who only are willing to invest in projects with X amount of proven and probable ounces, and say mine output is X% better due to optimizations from grade control, it may well not be dilutive but instead accretive in the final analysis. Only time will tell what the return on the raised capital is, and time spent second guessing management decisions in this regard before we know the answer to this question, is generally ill spent, because if you do not trust their judgement in the first place, you would be better off to find a company with a management team you do trust.
It is reasonable to assume that the team has made a well informed analysis in the interests of shareholders. Consider also that QHs largest stock holding by a mile is Novo. His interests are fully aligned with yours.
3) What QH refers to here is amongst other things the future expansion of BC, he expects this drilling program not only to operate within the current defined extent of BC, but to expand it as well. Say they track particular good mineralization in one corner of the deposit, then they would like to chase it, possibly beyond the current BC permitted area, essentially to go where the gold is, which will require future permitting. When he says nuggety, he is also referring to a non-linear distribution of gold. And he is thinking years into the future