RE: Six, eight, ....twelve??There were some good points made today, they did hit their target and produce 6,000 oz of gold, and mining production increased substantially. But one statement throws a "monkey wrench" in it all for me. (The "6,000-8,000-12,000" production increases thru the first three quarters of 2010 are looking more and more like another failed bar graph from Atna).
From the "MDA" press release, it is on page 10......
"Gold production during the first quarter amounted to 6,031 ounces,......production is expected to be approximately ten percent higher in the second quarter of 2010....."
If I understand it correctly, that 10 percent increase equals 6,630 oz of production for the second quarter, well below the 8,000 oz. shown in the latest company presentation. How do they get to 12,000 is the third quarter? I have a hard time seeing how they reach even 36,000 oz produced from Briggs mine in 2010 (IMO 30,000 oz seem more like it).
Based on first quarter results, Briggs doesn't meet the cash needs of the company, let alone fund development, and the second quarter doesn't look much better. Cash and cash equivalents are down to $ 8,847,500, a decrease in cash of $ 4,212,800 for the quarter. They have almost $5 million in 2010 CAPEX for Briggs, $3 million for 2010 CAPEX for Reward, another $2 million for drilling at both locations........administrative expense, interest and debt payments, bonding requirements for Reward.....then $20m more CAPEX for Reward construction, and hire people for that mine........where is all the money coming from if production doesn't start to increase in a meaningful way?