RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:PATHS...............I hope you don't catch the skepticalvirus either. As far as I know there is no vaccine for this virus yet. paths wrote: I hope I didn't catch the skepticalvirus. It's not so much that others got to me, although they were actually connecting some dots this time. One concern I have is the geostat. consultant I.J. has got it wrong, by estimating too high, three times in a row. At first I saw it as acceptable enough to stay workable, but this time it's into the range where it gets difficult to rationalize, so it's more diffi. Also the company seems to be another source of some doubt rather than helping. It leaves a feeling of being adrift in a rudderless boat, seems I'm not alone in arriving at this about now.
However, one can remember that more than a few companies have been giving very disapponting guidance for the year ahead, and then they beat guidance in each of the next four quarters. Makes it essentially obvious that guidance was intentionally set far too low, which could be somewhat applicable here since the company needs to reverse the trend of missing guidance. Except here, a statement was included that going beyond 2020 was not thought to be better "Based on preliminary data available to date, foreseeable average annual gold production while mining in Brucejack’s Valley of the Kings is currently expected to be in a range comparable with the gold production guidance range for 2020."