RE:RE:RE:RE:Time will tellTXG recent news says the land Lease Agreement problem was fake news put out by the competing union leader (because the competing union wants those jobs). If they start Ana Paula, new jobs will be created for them. They said one of the reasons to diversify was to create a larger company so they can get funding at better terms.
AP project numbers are much better than TGZ's development project. Much better AISC and over twice the NPV. Sure TGZ market cap has risen to $448 mil while ALO dropped to $126 mil, but that just makes ALO a better value now. You want to buy low and not high after a stock has already risen. With $51 mil cash, $75 mil for both San Francisco and a high grade $524 AISC project is extremely cheap.
auburn2 wrote: Not bad and some reason for medium term optimism, but I for one wont't taking an interest in this new company until I see $2.00/sh. ALO prudenly raised at $6.25, adding to an already robust financial position, but has been lacking focus, something I really dislike in a junior company. Were I running it I would hold off on all expenses, including at SF, hold off on exploration, and use every available penny and some debt to put AP into production ASAP. The need to "diverisfy" indicates management likely has juridisfication concerns related to the TXG situation. The exploration at AP may have been a way of intentionally stalling the project. I don't think they overpaid in this acquisiton, but neither does it seem like a screaming buy. At both respective levels I prefer the value proposition of ELD.
Meanwhile, TGZ is leaving ALO soundly in the dust.