> You dismissed my arguments that Kemess was uneconomic
> based on the low grade. Of course the parties with a
> vested interest claim it to be economic!
This is kind of an amusing comment, coming from a short seller, with a vested interest, who is claiming Kemess to be uneconomic.
So on one hand, we have those who, if they deliberately lied, would almost certainly get sued, who have years of experience in the mining industry and have spent millions of dollars attempting to determine the economics of a mine, and who have staked the company on the feasibility of this mine.
On the other hand, we have a short seller whose strongest argument for his theory that Kemess is uneconomic is something along the lines of "my reliable unnamed sources said so".
I'm not commenting on whether or not RYO will survive, because I'm not sure. I appreciate your efforts in keeping the discussion going, and making it interesting. However, the argument of discrediting management based on their vested interest doesn't seem to me to be a good one.
Overall, I like your contributions (just not this one). You've provided a contrary opinion to the general bullishness of SI, and have made people aware that there is significant risk in this stock! Plus, you've made this thread much more entertaining. Thanks, keep it up....
Richard |
