Shore gold vs Shore DiamondsSnoopy,
I love it when things happen to exclusively prove my point. It makes me giddy.
Please refer to:
https://www.thestar.com/business/companies/article/901109--shore-gold-moves-from-nuggets-to-carats
I'll point out a paragraph from a competent vice president of exploration George Read:
"Why not change your company name to Shore Diamonds to avoid confusion since you no longer explore for gold?
That’s often been spoken of. Even I stand up at conferences and say, “Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to introduce you to Shore Gold, which is a diamond company.” We took a serious look at that a couple of years ago and it was going to cost us a lot of money. We figured that for a company that was not generating revenue, we could not justify that sort of money just to change the name."
Here comes an obvious point. If a company like Shore gold won't spent money on the trivial, then why is a Mulgravian only supported company with no revenue generation and trading at 30 cents contemplating wasting money on a name change? The only thing I can think of is that the new Chair wants to keep the CEO busy so he doesn't get into any more trouble. If so, shouldn't he be focussed on getting drilling done in Guyana?
There is plenty of more work to do which is way more important. Here are just two examples:
1) Rexma alluvial production and the infinito 25% buy out. Get it done!!!
2) The last nr talks about surface and stream sediment sampling completed in August. Where are the results and when are the shareholders going to see them? At this rate of work, investors should not hold their breath for anything in 2011.