RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: NAG should...I don't know about that 10 month estimate - NAG hasn't mined more than 8,000 tons/month yet. Keeping with their standard 8,000-10,000 tons/month from the first 2 mines, that would change the mine life estimate to somewhere between 24 and 30 months.
If you are correct about "Mine #3" being a group of 5 sub-leases, (and I didn't realize that this was the case) then the estimates of 20,000 tons/month won't be realized until we have at least 2 of those going at once.
The fact that this is a MUCH smaller mine than "the one" that we've been anticipating is troublesome.
The first thing that comes to mind is: the cost of the mine is clearly much lower than "the big one", yet we are in the middle of trying to fill a PP, one of the justifications for which was the need for cash to post bond. Clearly, the bond cannot be as large as we have been anticipating. So what are we doing with the 2 to 2.5 million-ish bucks? Can't we use profits from the 2 mines soon to be in operation to fund bonds for the remaining sub leases, since they are clearly months away?
Juggling small leases like this doesn't inspire much confidence. I would *MUCH* prefer to see management putting all of their effort into having one, good, solid mine with a mine life of 5+ years than be switching up mines with lives of a year or so. After they have that base, then fine: pick up smaller mines that add value. Juggling smaller mines takes more time and effort. They are also almost certainly less cost-effective, though I can't back that statement up with any hard evidence.
Also, the whole business of naming mines by numbers really can be unnecessarily confusing. I wish they'd just use the property names in their NR's.