RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Restricted SharesIceland:
Your thoughts on this are wrong unfortunately.
If you ask any person including Michael Dehn today, what will be profitable
grade for RGX? Michael will say he does not know, wait for the PEA to be done in the scoping study. If 40% is the grade that be profitable, great, I will go along. But no one knows about it at this time.
Thus, the only purpose of 43-101 is to maximize the legally binding resources (and it has nothing to do with profitability at all this time) for value estimation (such as $30B mineral value in the ground), and you do NOT maximize the resources by using an extremely high cut-off, It will produce minimum resources instead. I have also listed companies such as Champion Minerals, their cut-off is only 1/46 of RGX's cut-off. This indicates that the cut-off used by RGX is close to insane. In other words, Michael is trying his very power to MINIMIZE the resources this time.
For example, if high grade is the criteria, why don't they use 50% iron as cut off, what will the results of the 43-101 resources? It will results in ZERO tonnage. Is that so great? I have not seen any drill hole with more than 50% iron.
Thus, Wolfin is right, Michael does not want to issue those shares (8M shares) by using a high cut off. But by doing so, he is hurting every RGX shareholder NOW, and he also violated his very own promises he put in writing on multiple times (I supplied those evidences in my earlier posts). That is the key. He can do anything but he must keep his own promises, especially those explicit promises he made to every RGX shareholder.
Just think about it again. As the CEO of RGX, Michael is supposed to help every shareholder, by disallowing important resources (including a hole of 154meters of 11 g/t gold equivalent), Michael is giving a favor to one part of RGX shareholders only, but probably unknown to himself, the market did not appreciate what he did, and ends up every shareholder got hurt with the low share price today. The market does not appreciate such low tonnage as much higher tonnage was promised in writing multiple times.
Also, I did not say, "do not use 44M tonnes from the current 43-101". This number (44M tonnes) can be used as the head grade for production, once the plant, mill, and infrastructure are paid for (in 2 years or less I hope), those lower grades can be extremely profitable, we know those high grades will be enough for 14 full years of commercial production already. Thus, I asked only to re-do 43-101 to get RGX more resources with a series of lower cut-off.
There is nothing wrong to ask to include the drill hole of 154 meters of 11 g/t gold equivalent in 43-101. Probably 98% of all TiO2 companies do not have drill hole of that quality today or in the future. If those companies with 2% TiO2 can make money, I really do not think RGX with high grade and a revolutionary low-cost metallurgy process cannot make money from 13% TiO2. If they cannot, CTL is no good. Remember RGX plans to commercialize CTL for other TiO2 companies, you do not tell me that CTL will not make money for 10% TiO2 or 2% TiO2. No, my estimate that RGX will make money even all the high grades are gone (probably 60 years or more later), and RGX still makes a huge profit by processing 10% TiO2.
As I posted earlier, RGX has much much more resources than 44M tonnes in the 43-101, and without any PEA data, I ask all good grades of RGX be counted. What is considered as a good grade? If other TiO2 companies can make money from 2% TiO2, anything above 4% (100% over 2%) is considered as good grade for me. If Champion used 10% iron as the cut off for PEA, why not 15% iron? They are good enough.