RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: rallyI wasn't impressed with the CC. Most of the folks wussed out on asking the hard questions. For one, as Urban has noted, the explanation of the Chinese money had many discrepancies. A couple hundred thousand paid and another couple hundred thousand next month was mentioned as was $1.7 million, but then the remaining total was quoted as $4.1 million. And, I still didn't understand our relationship to building railroads LOL, and why TIGMR, an educational institution, would be interested in investing in a mine.
It was also clearly stated that 0.2 grams (not sure if it was per ton or cubic yard) is the number sought for feasibility of a mine. Two years ago, these same people stated 0.5 grams was the low end of that evaluation when describing Morogoro in cooperation with Canaco. That, my friends, is a huge discrepancy.
Also, the whole 500,000,000 share authorization dialogue was completely ludicrous. If I remember correctly, the explanation was "our lawyer threw out that number, and I said why not?" Huh?
OK, we probably should be happy there might be platinum, uranium and whatever else on the property. However, having been around these guys for a few years, it almost sounded like they were already preparing alternatives to gold mining. I hope I'm wrong, but you know the saying "fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me."
BTW, I checked the CIM website for regs on 43-101's. I once asked why some of the big boys snooped around our property and didn't bother to pick it up for themselves....afterall, 50,000,000 ounces of gold can't be sneezed at. The answer was because alluvial properties can't be 43-101-ed, and their business practices won't allow them to continue without it. Lo and behold, yes they can and Harp stated as much yesterday. I guess Barrick, Placer, Anglo, etc just aren't astute businessmen LOL.
Here's hoping for the best.........