RE:RE:Added this MorningHahah Yes Matlas! I found there was a ot of "side-stepping" answers especially surrounding the resource estimates. The general tone of 10M Geos does seem optomistic. The big question I have is how much of the the 10M (+?) in whole or in part is propable, proven, inferred or indicated.
A freind of mine brought up a great point yesterday in conversation after GoldenL mentioned he had recieved confirmation that LME had not reached the 10M target for proven mineralization. MAtlas you then shared that you had information from source in 2019 that Cynthia was looking for $27. Well i think you both could be right. It is entirely possible they have proven say 7M GEOS and that there are a lot more GEOs in the stages of propable, inferred or indicated.
Back to the document, There were also some reference notes that were deleted. On the bottom of page 2 in the last paragraph there is a 1 after the word "advancements". in the middle of page 3 there is a 2 after "view" but the reference points at the end of the document were deleted.
Presumably they deleted these points because they have given too much info. For context point 1 would have further defined " The work we have undertaken on the property has yielded substantial advancements 1, improving our understanding and refining the initial inference of resources" and point 2 would have further defined "We recognize the significance of the current view2 of resources on the property in driving valuation discussions"
There was a 3rd reference point they kept in regarding a WSJ article.