Rich/Zeev, While I am always intrigued by 'theoretical' production costs/metal returns I find that they often [always?] leave out what really happens on the true production scheme. One clue to where the 'real' costs are is often found in the company's quarterly reports [assuming that there is enough detail to extrapolate cost categories]. Unfortunately, although I have been a GPGI shareholder for _many moons I have never received a financial report from this company. Perhaps it is due to my shares being held in 'street name'. QUESTION:
Have either of you [or any others for that matter] received enough [any?] Company financial cost details to the extent that you could calculate and categorize existing 'burn rates' within GPGI? Not only might this give one a more realistic idea as to 'real' GPGI operational costs, but it would also serve as a basis to calculate the on-coming requirements for further private placements. In this manner I suppose one could actually create a 'shares-dilution-vs-income- model'. Indeed, the longer it took the mining company to get into production, no matter how much 'metal' there was, the less likely it would be to get a good 'bag' rate for that original investor.
I mention this as one of my 'naive' reasons [originally] for buying into CHIP was that there were very few shares outstanding[as opposed to NAXOF]. In looking at CHIP, Lyon Lakes, GPGI, et al, we are probably looking at a flying price target [assuming, again, that 'success' will ultimately come to any of these puppies]. It has _not been with pleasure that I note the rapid escalation of shares on these good companies.
Rod Currie [Hollywood Beach, Ca.] |
