RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Malcolm is right........I guess I was just wondering if an indicated resource is enough for a major to be interested in buying them out. That has been FCU goal from the beginning. There is a higher level of certainty if the resource is measured.
juro777 wrote: Since the PFS is only focused on the two main zones, I believe sufficient drilling is complete there. That was half of the purpose of the last two drill campaigns; collecting all data required for PFS activity. Going forward, I think management will move towards expanding the new zones which are primarily inferred material at this time.
FCU's spending has come down alot over the past few years, I expect that trend to continue until share prices recover/appreciate and money becomes easier and less dilutive to raise.
But you are right, these are all assumptions at this point and we need further NRs to make an educated call on it.
shrink wrote: You may be right juro777. It depends on what their plans are for 2019 which they haven'treleased yet. If it is to release the pfs and sit, they likely would have enough money to last for awhile but i think that would hurt the share price. If they need to convert indicated resource to measured resource then that would require a lot more drilling, which means more money.
juro777 wrote: Using these numbers, it means FCU will have money going into Q4 2019. Realistically the burn rate over the next year will go down since PFS activities should have theoretically all been paid for and wrapped up.
shrink wrote: Greenday, I was looking at the latest sedar report.
Cash/cash equivalents,term deposit at the end of Sept 2018-24 mill
Cash/cash equivalents,term deposit enf do December 2017 41 mill, a difference of 17 mill in 9 months. Did I misread somethings?
Greenday wrote: @ shrink - FCU's financial statements show that your assertion is incorrect. What are/were you looking at?