RE: RE: RE: GoWest Gold Due Dilligence Orgprophet,
You're post content is funamentally significant and reasonable. The basis for my previous post centers more on the underlying/intrinsic reasons behind why the stock price is at its present, apparently low level when compared against other companies with next to no ounces. This project is obviously leading towards being an economic development but the ratio of results being returned against time when weighted further against the resource numbers and classifications is indicating that the project will either have a modest resource potential or will take a significantly longer period of time to reach production and cash flow. The markets are constatnly analyzing these elements in parallel and based on these timelines and resource numbers realized to date, the stock price is lower than i beleive that it could be at but not by much. The markets are looking at projects with 5 plus million ounce infered resources minimum and the ones with even 2 to 3 million look very average and are not getting the attention unfortunately. The markets are full of spectators that are averaging out all of the projects against the entire lot of applicants looking for recognition and funding and when taking into account the present GoWest project fundamentals in these areas, does not stand out amongst the crowd. Other projects trading at higher prices, even though they may not have the ounce reserves in place, have other attributes attached to them which signal greater output potential against time (ounces of gold against tons of rock moved) and this ratio is what gives some of the comparative plays an edge on the share price front. The grade on the present resource figure (43-101 based) at 6 grams is suitable for mining at depth but the grade is also based off of relatively narrow widths (which is often the case of greater gold concentrations being contained in narrower structures). Maybe if the average 6 gram figure can be demonstrated to exist within wider structure averages, then there viability of a much larger deposit model potentially being in place and as a result, a higher share price being the end result over time.
The bottom line is that the present deposit model is a narrow system that would have further strike potential build into its fundaments for expansion and resource increases but those increases will need to be returned from expansion along strike which will increase costs per ounce in the end.
Tedsky,