Baldy, in your conversations, did you ask which ENAMI mill they would be using ? Cause the closest I was able to find was 426 km, (found this April 2022), hopefully they have a new closer one. That is a LONG way to go.
I did not. I also failed to ask the question as to how or why they were making such a major company decision on such a small sample size. I should have. However, my general sense was that they felt Enami was not going to “play fair” or “pay fair” in any scenario.
The $5,000 per ton in “direct financial impact” has always been somewhat confusing. I understand that simply subtracting the grade that Enami reported (57.5 gpt) vs. the lab in Peru (128.5 gpt) is the equivalent of 2.2 ounces per ton or ~$5,000 per ton in “financial impact” but that liner equation is VERY misleading. It DOES not take into account any other costs (transportation, processing, cost of capital/financing, permitting for tailings disposal, etc, etc, etc).
The fact that some here are putting a lot of weight on $5,000 a ton while the company is simply subtracting the grade diffrerenial between Enami and a lab in Peru on an infintessimally small “experimental batch” and then multiplying that difference (70 gpt) by spot gold is, candidly, pretty comical (which is partly why I’m here).
Again, making existential company decisions based on a 200lb sample is analagous to analyzing a single snowflake to determine avalanche risk. I believe Maurizio and team are making the decision to avoid Enami b/c of concerns that they may lose money transporting that distance with any grade below 20gpt. As I’ve said, and I believe Maurizio would agree, a 20gpt average grade over any decent tonnage would/will be a very welcome outcome.
1 Like
Per my earlier post, just look at BB’s last post. He assumes that there’s some magical floatation flow sheet that AUMC is following to determine the extra $5,000 per tonne in profits (not financial impact). This is exactly what happens when peeps fixate on the granual details of company updates without using common sense.
He’s your elaborate “flowsheet” equation.
Enami reports 57.5 grams per ton on the bucket of ore they receive
Peruvian lab reports 128.5 grams per ton on the bucket of ore they receive
The difference in grades (by extraploating a ton of ore from 200lbs of rock) is 71 grams per ton
71 tonnes equals 2.29 ounces…2.3 ounces multiplied by the spot of price of gold (~$2100) is ~$5,000
$5,000 of “direct financial impact.”
I keep trying to “reverse engineer” management’s statement, so that I could get a better understanding of the breakdown of this “DIFFERENTIAL”.
The University of San Sebastian’s Mining Engineering Department has been fine-tuning the most efficient “customized flow sheet” for the froth flotation of the ore from Auryn’s DL2 Mine for a little over 2 years. Whatever they came up with is “baked into the cake” in that $5,000 per tonne “EXTRA” income figure.
Hey Mom look, I’m an engineer!
1 Like
The AUMC Board of directors released their update to inform us that there was a significant difference in grams captured using the froth flotation process based on a small sampling of ore. The difference on that small sampling indicated a $5,000 per ton benefit. No one here should believe that every ton shipped after going through the flotation process is going to have $5,000 of additional benefit.
The only thing we should take from the Boards update is that they have decided that the financial benefit derived from processing the ore through the flotation process is well worth the investment in the facility.
3 Likes
100%
But, to be clear, the difference in grades and the supposed $5,000 delta, is not specific to any froth floatation process nor evaluation. We’re talking about something as simple as two different grades coming from Enami vs. a lab and then trying to extrapolate the “economic impact” by subtracting the two different grades and multiplying by spot. The Peruvian lab results and grades have nothing to do with recoveries or any other associated costs specific to a froth flotation circuit.
Also to be clear, even AUMC isn’t claiming the $5,000 to be a net result (profits), that would be another embellishment originated on this board. Implicitely, the $5,000 would be gross, not net of all of the other related expenses of “doing it yourself.”
In other words, this $5,000 headline number is only getting “play” b/c of the usual cast of characters who have run out of things to “cling” to.
1 Like
It’s interesting how different people, with different experiences in the mining sector and different reasons for participating in this investment forum, look at the very same text of a press release/quarterly update and come up with grossly different conclusions. Shouldn’t LOGIC play a more prominent role in interpreting the content of a press release rather than inherent biases?
For example, management described the ore they sent to the Codelco/Enami DIRECT SMELTING facilities as an “experimental batch” with no indications as to the tonnage involved. To a naysayer, this choice of phraseology got interpreted as a “bucket of ore” that got sent to the smelter and as it being an unreliable “infinitesimally small sample”. The accusation was also made that management fraudulently removed some of the impurities from the ore sample in order to enhance the resultant smelter results. This later led to the characterization of Auryn’s decision to build their own froth flotation system as being a hasty multi-million-dollar decision based on insignificant data. All of this being based on the chosen phraseology of an “experimental batch”.
What would an approach involving LOGIC assume? Some very smart Professional Geoscientists (P. Geos) and Professional Engineers (P. Engs) decided how large of a sample size should be sent in to the smelter in order to base a multi-million-dollar decision on. There is no LOGICAL reason to send in an inadequate sample size with no statistical validity.
In the most recent press release dated October 9, 2023 management stated that after “RIGOROUS DATA ANALYSIS”, the Auryn BOD concluded that the correct decision was for Auryn to build their own froth flotation circuit on-site at the ADL and to dispose of the discards/tailings on-site, instead of paying Enami (as part of Enami’s fee) to store the tailings on their premises. How can the geoscientists and engineers perform a “RIGOROUS DATA ANALYSIS” based on an infinitesimally small “bucket of ore”? If you review the Curriculum Vitae of the 2 new BOD appointees, as well as that of Maurizio, why would they have any part of any behavior like they are accused of participating in? Maurizio owns 60% of the Auryn shares, why would he commit millions of dollars to a project based on the smelting results from smelting a “bucket of ore”?
In that same press release, management cited a $5,000 per tonne “DIRECT FINANCIAL IMPACT” associated with their decision to build their own froth flotation facility rather than use Enami to do the froth flotation process and store the tailings on Enami’s premises. Does the phraseology “DIRECT FINANCIAL IMPACT” of $5,000 per tonne, after performing this “RIGOROUS DATA ANALYSIS”, imply to you a willy-nilly estimation of economic effect or something that was carefully studied prior to making this multi-million decision?
WHAT MIGHT A “DIRECT FINANCIAL IMPACT” ANALYSIS LOOK LIKE IN THE GOLD ORE MINING AND PROCESSING INDUSTRY?
The LOGICAL interpretation would be that they studied the entire mining and ore processing process from start to finish before arriving at that $5,000 per tonne figure. Whether Enami did the froth flotation process or Auryn did it themselves, the intra-adit mining of the ore would be the same. The miners blast the 2 “working faces” of level 3 of the DL2 Mine, they scoop up/”muck” the ore with a wheel-loader, and transport the ore to the on-site crusher where the ore is crushed to the specific size deemed to result in the highest “recovery” for the froth flotation process.
If the ore is to be shipped to Enami for froth flotation then it is loaded onto a truck awaiting shipment to the nearest Enami froth flotation facility at Chancon-Ranconagua i.e. the “Los Robles” facility. If the ore is to be froth-floated by Auryn on-site then it would be temporarily stockpiled awaiting the completion of the facility. Up until this point, the costs for mining and crushing the ore are identical and there has been no beneficial “DIRECT FINANCIAL IMPACT” realized. The $5,000 “DIRECT FINANCIAL IMPACT” would occur from this point forward.
No matter where the froth flotation process occurred, the next step in the ore refining process is nearly always a “CARBON IN LEACH” facility or a “CARBON IN PULP” facility followed by the final destination being a SMELTER. If management chose Enami as the agent to do the froth flotation process, then Enami would be the default option for the “CIL/CIP” process and the SMELTING process. If the choice made was to build your own froth flotation facility, then the option would be open as to where to execute the “CIL/CIP” process as well as SMELTING. Enami may or may not be the choice made for these processes. Maurizio is on the record for saying that the overall goal was to do all pre-smelting processes on-site. SMELTERS are billion-dollar facilities and there are only 7 in all of Chile with 4 owned and operated by Codelco.
THE ECONOMICS OF ON-SITE FROTH FLOTATION
First and foremost, froth flotation (FF) is INEXPENSIVE COMPARED TO THE CIL PROCESS AND SMELTING. For the miners that could afford to build their own FF facility, after factoring in CAPEX and OPEX costs, it costs only about $10 per tonne to “float” the ore. The average CONCENTRATING results is 4-fold with a range of 2 to 20-fold increases in gold grade post-flotation. The product of the FF process is called the “FLOAT CONCENTRATE”. You can choose whatever estimated “head grade” or “run of mine grade” that Auryn averages over time, but if, for example, it comes out to be 40 gpt gold, then the “float concentrate” might be expected to be around 160 gpt gold. It could be more or less than that depending on how well the ore responds to FF in that 2-fold to 20-fold range. MANAGEMENT KNOWS THESE NUMBERS (head grade and FF efficiency) BUT WE DON’T, ALL WE HAVE TO GO BY, FOR NOW, IS THAT $5,000 per tonne DIRECT FINANCIAL IMPACT figure. We are not a party to the details of this “RIGOROUS DATA ANALYSIS”. All we know, is that the BOD UNANIMOUSLY voted to build their own plant because of this $5,000 per tonne “BONUS”.
TRANSPORTATION COSTS AND THE TONNAGE OF MATERIAL BEING SHIPPED
One thing that we do know, is that the TRANSPORTATION COSTS involved in doing your own FF on-site is going to be a lot less than if everything that came out of the adit got shipped to Enami. When you state that the average CONCENTRATING FACTOR for FF is 4-fold, this means that three-fourths of the ore mined is going to consist of the discards/tailings associated with the FF process. This material is not going to be TRANSPORTED anywhere. It will never be exposed to a somewhat expensive CIL process nor will it ever be SMELTED. Mining is all about getting rid of the worthless component of the ore (the “gangue”), as early on in the process as possible and as inexpensively as possible. This $5,000 per tonne DIRECT FINANCIAL IMPACT figure is going to be made up of many COMPONENTS.
The question arises as to what management was referring to when they used the phraseology “DIRECT FINANCIAL IMPACT”. Were they referring to PROFITS? Were they referring to higher REVENUE or lesser COSTS? I couldn’t tell you. It’s a very large number though.
Going back to the use of LOGIC when you read about differing interpretations of the exact same press release. Does it make sense that extremely successful management and BOD members would lie on a press release and risk losing all that they have accomplished through the years?
9 Likes
And here we are ! End of the year with no Xmas present!
Happy New to all of you! Only 20 years invested so far. Could 2024 be the Year?
1 Like
2024 sounds like a good number! Gold looks to breakout over 2100 
Happy New Year!
2 Likes
It is amazing. Different strokes for different folks. Readers on this forum can make their own determination on the the past, present and future implications of the difference in analysis.
A couple quick points to that are worth stating. I realize that debating each point with BB is like trying to convince someone that the sky isn’t blue. Sometimes individuals become so lost and/or committed to their POV that no amount of facts will convince them to change their position. For what its worth, I’m willing to change my position, and have become incrementally more bullish on AUMC over a long period of time, after conversations with the company and a considerably lower valuations, but, IMO BB is still so off the mark, its worth addressing his “analysis.”
The company has specified EXACTLY what the tonnage was. In April they sent 120kg to the lab(s) in Peru. This is the equivalent of 265lbs. If they are comparing whatever they sent to Enami with the results of the Peruvain lab we can only rely on the 120kg (smaller sample set) as the base case for analysis. How can someone who spends soooo much time parsing through company updates miss this fact? If those samples were 100gpt material they would literally be a bucket of ore.
If a company is making decisions for 100’s of thousands/millions of processed tons, I think its fair to say that 120kg is an infintesimally small.
I never accused managemetn of “fraudently removing anything.” Again, the company publicly stated they were taking ore directly from the vein for the sample. This isn’t fraudelent or even irregular. However, taking ore from a vein is considered “high grading” and in no way represents the blended ore from production.
Its worth noting the same individual performed the same rigourous data analysis when entering an LOI with Goldlogic. This led to another dead end b/c of the refractory nature of the ore (something than any junior geo could identify outside of a lab setting).
At the end of the day labs can’t analyze thousand of tons of material b/c that’s not what they are set up to do. Nothing odd about the size of the sample but it does not allow for rigorous analysis of an entire project.
The company told us that the labs were analyzing 265lbs of material and it took several months to receive results. Even if one hoped that the lab had received more ore the new results probably won’t be generated until the new year.
This one if my favorite. Is BB claiming that AUMC didn’t simply subtract the difference in GPT from Enami to the lab in the Peru to determine the $5,000 financial impact?? If I was in his shoes I would probably try the same deflection but the numbers don’t lie. Keep in mind that the reports they received from Enami and Peru were received well before any decision was made to proceed with the froth floatation. The sequence of company updates don’t lie but, after spending months claiming that the $5,000 delta was some sort of elaborate analysis I can understand why one would cling to that theory. But…a 72gpt delta is the equivalent to a $5,000 “direct financial impact.”
It’s worth stating, any of the above “differences of opinions” could be confirmed or negated via a brief conversation with the company. None of the above would be considered “inside” nor proprietary information that would infringe on the good Doc’s ability to acquire more shares. Sometimes individuals are so lost in their analysis that they would rather NOT know the facts.
Quick point of clarification. A smelter is not a refiner and its important not to confuse a copper smelter with a gold refiner. The smelters peform the pyrometallurgical recovery of the contained metals. The refiners (which are the muli-billion facilities referenced in your post) perform the hydrometallurical process using agents like cyanide and sulphuric acid to produce refined, high-purity gold that essentially what you think of when buying gold bars and coins. Ore processed through CIL/CIP is what the offtakers love as they will then send that material to the refiners (not the smelters) after paying a discount to the contained materials. That’s where the Trafigura, Glencore, Traxys, etc make all of their money.
The froth flotation makes a lof sense for AUMC. Often the only choice turns out to be the right one. Having to raise equity financing to pay for it isn’t ideal but the company can start small, using a modular approach. My main concern is what they will do will all of the tailings. They will clearly need to get the appropriate permitting but its hard to envision where they will put all of that stuff on the top of the mountain.
I would imagine/hope that the company will provide more details on this along with the preliminary engineering design, costs, etc for the flotation circuit in the next couple of updates. These things take a lot of time and, given they only recently made the decision to go this route, they are still working through the details.
Why are you minimizing the significance though? Its a no brainer not to pay 72gpt equivalent fee to Enami versus building a froth plant. That’s also why they are stockpiling and not shipping in the meantime, a question you asked repeatedly in a condenscending tone everytime. If we can average 20gpt (your hope) at the top of the mountain and run that material through the froth circuit, we should be profiting $50M+ annually once production is in full swing.
You don’t look to invest millions unless you are confident that your return is going to be many multiples of that. Thats simple risk reward analysis, doing otherwise is just poor business sense. Seems to me you can’t bring yourself to admit just how big this is going to be. Instead you slide your commentary more and more to the favorbale side without resisting the burning urge to trash BB along the way.
5 Likes
Jimmy. I’m not sure you understand anything that I have posted. If they average 20gpt that would be more than 66% less than the entire positive “financial impact” the company has cited.
I have been very transparent on moving towards a more positive bias. The stock is down 99%. Still am not long any shares, thankfully, but I wouldn’t be here is there was no price I would buy. But we are getting to the point where there might be some value if they meet my expectations over the next few years. Maurzio and the share price stills needs to work through some disappointments b/c of the crazy predictions offered here but life goes on
I understand fully what you posted. The $5,000 impact is based on a “high graded” sample. It still emphasizes the point that it is illogical to pay that high of a % of a fee versus treating the ore on site. I’m not using $5k per ton anywhere in future projections. You can scale the fee way down if we are avergaing 20gpt, but proportionately it is still insanely high as compared to treating it on site.
Simply based on 20gpt with our own treatemnt facility and decent production rate with gold at current levels equals very impressive profits. Let’s just all agree on that.
4 Likes
WHAT’S THE BEST INFORMATION WE HAVE TO DATE IN PREDICTING THE AVERAGE GRADE OF GOLD ORE AURYN IS CURRENTLY MINING AT THE DL2 MINE?
If you dare to predict likely average grades for gold production from the DL2 Mine, you need to follow some rules and know the history of the deposit. The larger the sample size, the more statistically accurate your estimations will be.
At the DL2 Mine, we’re extremely fortunate in that this vein was in production from 1940 to 1970. The artisanal miners in this operation mined a 350-meter strike length of the vein down to about 100-meters of depth. They mined about 4 to 5% of the known dimensions of the DL2 Vein. That is a very impressive “sample size”.
The operations had both a “Mom and Pop” aspect to it in that only 2,000 tonnes were mined over the course of 30 years, but it also had a more serious character to it in that the miners constructed 7 vertical shafts/”ventilation raises” and 5 “ventilation/safety egress chimneys” to the surface. They did a wonderful job in “setting the table” for Auryn to come in underneath where they ceased operations, at about the 1,860 meters above sea level elevation, which allowed Auryn to tap into this vast network of pre-existing “ventilation raises” so that Auryn’s operations could have significant “SCALABILITY” from the point of view of a significant ventilation system and a significant emergency egress system for safe mining.
The high level of “SCALABILITY” comes from Auryn’s new found ability to simultaneously mine from various levels under level 3 in a safe manner. This was cemented into place by SERNAGEOMIN’S signing off on the new ventilation and safety egress system which, in turn, allowed Enami to place Auryn on the Chilean Mining Registry rolls which allows Auryn to make regular shipments to Enami if they so choose. This work of the artisanal miners in conjunction with the SERNAGEOMIN sign off, increased the “value” of the DL2 Mine by many millions of dollars and saved Aury several years of work.
The artisanal miners averaged 64 gpt gold in these operations AFTER ENAMI TOOK OUT THEIR FEES. The artisanal miners had no “beneficiation” facilities on-site to enhance the grade of the ore over the intra-adit “head grade” or “run of mine grade”. Within that 100-meters of depth that the artisanal miners mined, although the “AVERAGE” was 64 gpt gold, the grades ranged from about 54 gpt gold in the top third near surface, to about 64 gpt gold in the middle third, to about 74 gpt gold in the bottom third of that vertical expanse. Auryn has recently commenced mining at about 15-meters below where the artisanal miners were averaging 74 gpt gold.
Both Richard Sillitoe, probably the most accomplished Economic Geologist, in the history of mining and Rob Cinits from ACA Howe Mining Consultants agreed that, as is the norm in other MESOTHERMAL VEIN SYSTEMS, both the grades and widths are improving with depth at the DL2 Mine. The question becomes, what should we temporarily “pencil in” as the estimated average gold grade that Auryn might accomplish during their mining efforts first al level 3 and then below level 3. A different question might be, is there some reason why Auryn shouldn’t be able to match the grades achieved by the artisanal miners who used the technology available from 1940 to 1970. Because of the size of this 2,000 tonne “SAMPLE”, I’m going to have to assume that this data would have to be looked upon as the most statistically accurate data available. Obviously, the time element has nothing to do with the grade of the gold present currently at level 3 and below.
WHAT FRESHER DATA DO WE HAVE?
On Jan. 4,2023, when the Antonino Adit finally intersected the DL2 Vein at the new level 3 of the mine at the 1,840 masl elevation, 2 groups of vein “channel samplings” were undertaken by the Auryn geoscientists. The first group of 4 separate channel samples revealed an average grade of a robust 164 gpt gold over 0.6-meters width. For benchmarking purposes, the average grade of gold mined today worldwide in similar underground vein operations is 4.18 gpt gold. The second group of samplings came in at an average of 150 gpt gold. Clearly, the “increasing grade with increasing depth” pattern remains intact.
Subsequent to these assays, Auryn sent samples of DL2 Vein ore to 2 separate SMELTING facilities. The sample sent to the Codelco/Enami Smelting Facilities came back with an average grade of 57 gpt gold, 978 gpt silver and 3.3% copper. The sample sent to an independent smelter in Peru came back at 128 gpt gold.
OTHER COMPLICATING FACTORS
Auryn reported some assay results many months ago, from DL2 Vein sampling done in the “old works” of the artisanal miners, at levels 0, 1 and 2. These were from a limited amount of production Auryn did in this area. The results averaged 85 gpt gold. Interestingly, the comment made was that this production was done “WITHOUT BLASTING”.
After successfully intersecting the DL2 Vein via the Antonino Adit and after getting the blessing of SERNAGEOMIN, Auryn went into production and noted that they were producing “DIRECTLY FROM THE VEIN”. In my experience, vein mining typically involves mining from the “working face” of an adit. The working face will typically contain a centrally located “vein proper” surrounded on each side by less well-mineralized “wall rock”. Holes are drilled into the working face, dynamite or ANFO is stuffed into the holes, the blast is initiated and the blast debris falls to the adit floor. All of this material, containing both material from the vein proper as well as the surrounding wall rock, is scooped/”mucked” up by a wheel-loader, and delivered to the on-site crusher.
Usually, the width of the adit, remains at about 3-meters. So that heavy equipment can pass through. I’m not sure what Auryn means by stating that they are mining “DIRECTLY FROM THE VEIN”. First of all, are they “blasting” or are they still removing ore without blasting as they did recently in the “old works”. Secondly, are they doing “split blasting”, where they blast the vein material first, scoop it up and deliver it to the crusher, and then come back and blast the less well-mineralized wall rock and bringing it to surface and placing it into a different pile? Are they using narrower equipment and just blasting the vein material and leaving the wall rock alone? Clarification is obviously needed.
SUMMARY
In a situation like this, perhaps the best approach is to forego any estimations of the grade of ore that Auryn is likely mining until those grades are presented to us. The caveat might be to not be surprised just in case the numbers are off the chart. “HIGH GRADE GOLD ORE” is typically defined as any grade over 7 or 8 gpt gold.
7 Likes
Hallelujah! It only took 25 years but wiser words have never been typed on this board.
1 Like
I see BB as one of the few on TMP who actually demonstrates wisdom & logic based on available info, not to mention civility and professionalism. He thoroughly explains all the steps it takes him to ponder any variable possibilities. BB doesn’t play King Kong games. I wonder how much longer before we see wiser words from your posts.
2 Likes
If past is precedence I’m fairly confident in saying that you don’t/won’t have the capacity to recognize those “wise” words whenever they are presented.
For historical context and some cliffs notes here are a few of my key assertions thus far:
Les and insiders were conducting a massive fraud through illegal issuance of shares: Proven accurate
Even though AUMC represented that they were fully funding through production when they acquired the CDCH/MDMN assets this was inaccurate as, at the time, they were actively looking for financing: Proven accurate.
Despite multiple claims that AUMC had entered “production” there has not been a single dollar recognzied via the handful of shipments supposedly sent to Enami. All of the premature celebrations about entering production were misplaced: Proven accurate with the caveat that they could have theoritically used proceeds to pay down the “third party debt” (highly unlikely and should have been disclosed).
There is no way that a project at this state of development could attract a normal offtake agreement for financing: Proven accurate. They couldn’t even close on an “abnormal” offtake.
The shares in AUMC and MDMN were extremely overvalued based on any comparitive analysis: Proven current as the share prices are both down over 90%.
Anyone looking to have exposure to these assets would be better served buying AUMC over MDMN. Proven accurate. They have both been creamed but AUMC has held in better, on a relative basis. This being said, the ratio is now so out of whack that MDMN now looks to be the better play (even taking into account the accured expenses and costly exercise of conversion).
The shares in AUMC and MDMN could be entering an attractive entry point in the high teens equivalent for AUMC (MDMN is already there): To be determined.
The high end of possible GPT over any normal course of production could/should be as high as 20gpt. Any analysis on a 2k tonnes of material high graded (hand picked) by artisenal miners over a 30 year period holds zero value:
To be determined.
AUMC is depending on an infintesimally small sample of ore to make existential business decisions: Proven accurate by the company’s own press releases as was the calculation for the $5,000 “economic impact”. Some here didn’t even notice that the company quanitified the 265lb sample sent to the Peruvian labs (NOT the Peruvian smelter)
AUMC does not represent the 1 in 10,000 miners able to get into production without dilution: To be determined. The lack of MR/MR has clearly been a major obstacle for the company and, in retrospect, they clearly should have spent some time and money definiing the resource. The company has admitted that they are pursuing equity financing to pay for the froth floatation but that is an open question. Worth noting that MDMN/CDCH were already diluted by 90%+ under JJ and Les’s tenure, and an additional 90% following the AUMC acquisition, and are still NOT able to claim production 7+ years later. Also worth noting that the dilution was incorrectly justified at the time b/c of the “assets” they brought to the table under the concept of a smaller slice of a bigger pie analogy (proven inaccurate as those assets still have no recognizeable value)
Do I even need to say who took the opposite side of every one of these assertions?
We will see how the rest of the “to be determined” and other developements pan out. IMO, the next update will address, definitively, at least one of the TBDs.
FWIW, if you find my posts to be too abbrasive I would encourage you to go back and read the opinions of CHG, Coldsnow, Hurricane Rick and even Wizard. While they often offer views different from mine, they are clearly more grounded in reality vs. some of the more avid posters as of late.
3 Likes
New topic for 2024. Best New Year to all!
1 Like