RE:IKN Daily Digest thoughts on PVGinvestedwolf wrote: Consider this scenario. These are three things that we know:
a) Snowden wants to process all the 10,000 tonnes of bulk sample, Strathcona wants to select ten "towers" which is roughly 10% of the total as its representative sample.
b) the 10,000 tonnes are being processed.
c) Strathcona has resigned.
From these, we can logically deduce that the problem is indeed the Cleopatra vein. PVG took a lot of its bulk sample from Cleo and Strathcona then may have said, "Well fine, you can do that, but it skews out the entirety of the 10k of rock and makes the whole unrepresentative. What we need to do is select representative rock from the 10k bulk and process that to get a true idea of VOK."
PVG refuses to do that and for obvious reasons. Strathcona resigns, because it has a high reputation and integrity. What we then see is Robert Quartermain suggesting to the market "Yeah well, Strathcona only wanted to use 10%, Snowden and we want to use all of it and SURELY 100% is better than 10%???!?!!?"
There's the rub, i think. Yes, it's about Cleo and yes Strathcona has walked because PVG is doing something akin to salting.
That is actually a really plausible explanation as well and much better (for shareholders) than the alternate (flawed PEA, RE is wrong or deposit is not economically feasible). The part that still gets me though is how strongly Strathcona called out PVG on the mine. It was strongly worded enough that it could cover all scenarios.
For the sake of those invested, I hope it's merely that Strathcona feels the bulk sample is very misleading, but not so misleading that the deposit cannot be brought to profitable production.