RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:2nd qtr. Is up in 2 weeks! I also think the management team is doing a very good job. It is the financial context of AGG that makes the Kobada project more complex. And as you say, it's one step at a time and all of these steps are equally important.
As the geology of the Kobada project is similar to the geology of Robex's Nampala permit, I believe that one should be careful with the potential of the sulphide zone. Robex partially treats this area which requires more crushing and whose recovery rate is lower. Fortunately, these negative factors are offset by a higher gold grade. According to my knowledge, the deeper the mineral, the more refractory it is to chemical agents. Thus, the extraction will go to the breaking point of profitability. In Robex's technical documents, it is said that this mineral is located in the transition zone. As a precaution, I believe that AGG shareholders can expect to obtain results similar to those obtained by Robex, namely a partial conversion of these mineral resources into new reserves. The studies initiated by AGG we will say ...
Regarding the recovery of gold from the Kobada permit, we are indeed in a low-cost model. The gold grades are interesting, as is the potential for the discovery of new mineralized zones. My only concern is the particularly large layer of waste rock which will have to be removed and which will require a lot of cash. The financial structure of AGG and / or its partners must be sufficiently solid to face unforeseen events. This start-up phase involves a lot of expense and generates little income.
Regarding security issues, they should not be ignored, just as they should not be amplified. Can we agree on that?
Like you, I am convinced that this permit will eventually be in operation.