SB says:
"those saying the deposit is at least 25 million ozs, that this will be the next Goldcorp and the share price should be $20 by noon, have an agenda, not me."
National Bank says:
"should support a resource of more than seven million ounces of gold."
Jay Taylor says:
"San Gold could be the next Goldcorp"
Robert Cohen or some other fund guy said on BNN:
"This should have been a $20 stock"
I say
"San Gold will be $9 by June 2012."
I say this based solely on a similar technical move as the last move off the bottom which saw the sp rise from .57 to $5. Pretty straightforward and that barely gets us into the $3 billion range which a number of other development/early stage producers are on route to, so why not SGR?
I'm also saying that if Bob Hoye's post credit bubble contraction takes root, all bets are off and gold equities will go parabolic not at all disimilar to the 30's. Even Martin Murenbeeld thinks one of those contractions is imminent. That's a fact, you can look it up. Not only that, but regular guys like Doug Casey and Eric Sprott think gold equities will go into the stratosphere. What's to say SGR won't take part? Was CPP and the other large investments by all those funds misguided in their investments?
Do all these guys have an agenda? Are they wrong to expect a sizeable return on their investment? Why is SGR any different at this point than any other speculative venture that you don't single out on any other board?
The problem that plagued SGR in the past was an inexperienced management team that lacked street cred. That's history.
