RE: RE: pre-feasibility studyCarkissss
I expressed my opinion. It is based on too many years of working with major mining companies. They tend to be very traditional and bound into finding a deposit that fits their vision of what that deposit should be. If it doesn't fit their picture then they walk.
My comments are much more of a critism of Vale than what Cantex has in the ground. Some of the reported intercepts from the early drilling are good economic intersections. The true widths and continunity are the critical questions.
Are the goods there? Hell, I wish I knew. I believe that assays/intercepts reported are valid. I have no reservations accepting the past work. But again, the true widths and continunity are the critical questions. Cantex and Vale haven't drilled enough to answer those questions.
Can you remember Vince Roberts report from 2001? Too bad it's no longer available on the Cantex website.
One of the things I remember was the amount of folding and faulting present. Difficult geology and difficult to determine continunity. This suggests detailed drilling will be necessary.
Which leads me back to my post on the feasibility study. Hundreds of holes are necessary prior to initiating a feasibility study. A 2 month extension won't provide anywhere near the information necessary to iniate a feasibility study.
What I recommend is people look at Ventana Gold who are exploring a deposit in Colombia. (T.Ven) This isn't a commercial plug but Ventana is making what I consider all the right moves to take a prospect to a mine. I would suggest that Cantex could learn a lot from Ventana about how to pursue a deposit.