RE:Is an impairment charge in the offing?Shermandrock1 wrote: Suppose for the moment that recovery cannot be reliably expected to exceed 86%. At 86%, that would calculate to 95.55% of the recovery as included in the PEA. Does that mean that the ability of the project to generate the anticipated returns is impaired by 4.45%? Looking back at the recent stream wherein the 2.5% stream was assigned a value of $40M. By that valuation metric, that would imply an impairment charge of $71M. However (there is always a however), the mineralization recently discovered / extended that will be added to reserves / resources shortly will likely exceed that by a significant margin. Does that negate any impairment charge? Perhaps the impairment charge can be limited to a % of the cost of the underperforming mill? Say $5M, $10M, $20M. That would actually be helpful to the ASIC as depreciation on a going forward basis would be less per ounce. All these questions, eh? This is exactly what happens when management chooses to keep information on lock down. Folks like me tend to speculate (often wrongly) and make stuff up to fill the information gap. It sure would be welcome for some indication of the performance of the implemented fixes. That is not too much to ask, right?
Let the higher gold price take care of the lost returns lol. This is trading for less than half book, shouldn't this easily be a 6 dollar stock even with the problems they are having. Even Semafo is trading for over double what this is with a mine shut down trying to operate in jihadist territory