Underwaterdark
Regular
I agree, that if that's all the issue was, that it would be the best course of action.Below is my reply to a post (other site) regarding the hold up of the ML due to the lease area having been reduced .
"So at this point , apart from the bit that's been chopped off AVZ can have a lease for Roche Dure 400mil tonnes ++? Is it that simple ? Why doesn't AVZ management just tell investors a ML for Roche Dure is a certainty "however " our area to the north has not been included and we will be taking action to "try" and have it reincluded before we sign off on the ML . Now if that was the approach I'm sure most investor would be resting easy . So it's either AVZ Management PR skills are atrocious or it's not that simple ." imo
Obviously there is more at play and larger issues with CAMI.
Would have been a slightly disappointing, but better result if they come out and said the ML was issued over a smaller tenement, but we have paid for and progressed it and will build the mine etc and pursue the PE for the northern portion at the same time.
Only tim will tell for how it plays out and if it was gross mismanagement or 4d chess.