Zeev, you have rasied very interesting questions and remarks about
IPMC. Maybe you can elaborate on some of them later.
First about my remarks that I believe that the South Africans may
be the higher cost producers - if by any chance the weird three
are all in full production. I do not have any solid figures for the
production cost of the weird three because it is still too early.
But my line of thinking is like that. According to your info,
if GPGI just take away the boulders and stones etc., it will have
real high grade ore. NXR - if eventually they prove out everything
they claim, their ore will be real high grade. With the grades
likely to be several times of the S. Africans - per oz Pt cost
will be much lower unless their per ton cost of ore is several
times higher than the SA - which I believe is not the case.
Also the S. African gold mines are regarded as high cost mines
even though they devaluate their currency already. A lot
of their mines are so deep and with the labor cost and benefits
(more holidays etc) rising after Mandella came into power,
their gold mining business is in trouble. I believe that the S. African's gold production had dropped in the last few years while the
U.S. gold mine production increases. That's why I think they
will face real big serious competition in Pt from the weird three if
all 3 ever go into full production one day. No solid figures here - just some thinking. As for the Russia Pt., I have no info about them
and cannot comment on them .
Yes, I share the same concern with you about the Oct 1998 production
date. I also worry about the full feasibility study required by Apr 1997 - which is about 8 months away. I believe you need proven reserves which can be done by more infill drillings and assaying . You also need
a recovery procedure and grades for the feasibility study -- which they are still working on. You also need flowsheet for the future plant, financing plan etc. etc. The schedule seems to be a bit tight.
Can they re-negotiate the dates if need be? I do not have the faintest
idea about it.
Yes, the 1995 annual report showed that IPMC had an accumulated
deficit of about $29m (about $3.1m occured in 1995) and about
$10m in deferred exploration expenditure. I do not have the
older annual reports so I cannot comment on the past accumulated
deficit. Do you have more info about it?
As for 1995, the deficit is mainly consisted of $1.2m in
admin. fees and $1.8 in exploration expenditures written off for older properties. Again I am not sure about their older properties, so
I cannot comment. And for admin. fees, a $1.8m is not too high
when you compare it with other junior mining companies that are actively involved in exploration, testing etc. Yes, I
understand that GPGI has much lower overhead, but I believe GPGI
is the exception rather than the norm. I think that GPGI
is one of the most tightly run small mining companies around.
Is it true that at some point in time, Mr. Jensen is using his home
as the company's head office?
You say they will run out of their cash a few times before
production. Definetly. That's why they will have to keep financing
to raise cash they need. Again, most junior exloration companies
without production properties have to keep financing to survive.
Your last point of saying they might drop their difficult projects
is interesting. Can you elaborate on it? |
