Hello Goldhunter,

As luck would have it, when you posted your message, I was answering Kerry’s message. In that answer, I talked about the same environmental concerns that you have.

Of course, nobody needs “a big headache” (as you’ve put it). The sentiment I expressed to Kerry could be summarized as: It’s more likely than not that this will be resolved shortly with no serious hurt to ATG (or its acquirer). Also, FNC would make sure of this, before proceeding.

So far as capex, ATG more than went the extra mile to minimize it (along with minimizing the environmental footprint) by severely cutting the dimensions of the project. The idea is to mine the deposit as quickly and as easily and as profitably as possible (by sacrificing size).

They even went so far as to commission two additional 43-101 resource estimates, which were designed to lower (!) the number of ounces intended to be mined (according to revised planning).

1,980,000 ounces = 11/3/2004 (43-101)
1,787,400 ounces = 3/30/2009 (43-101)
1,009,000 ounces = 6/30/2011 (43-101)