Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Global Platinum & Gold (GPGI)

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Tim Hall who wrote (4582)	12/30/1997 1:41:00 PM
From: Jeff Williams	Read Replies (2) of 14226

I for one would be against a purchase of additional mining land at any price including for shares, for the simple reason we don't need it. The Mike Thomas report on the Oro Grande came up with a TRILLION TONS(!!!) of ore on the Oro Grande/Weaver Creek properties as I recall. That is a 136,000 year supply at 20,000 tons per day (if I did the math correctly). And we are still in ore on strike and to depth at 700 feet, with only about 10% of the Oro Grande drilled. I am going from memory only here folks, so don't hold me exactly to those figures above, but they are pretty close. I can only assume the subject property Jim Currie referred to must be one suitable for, or existing as, a refining operation. That would make a lot of sense, especially if we are going to increase production by a major multiple. Remember, we just spent about a million bucks ($ & shares combined) on the Oro Grande, so I don't think Dick would entertain an additional property consisting only of "dirt." This is just my opinion... I have no personal knowledge of this from Dick Jensen or anyone else. Anyone have any related thoughts on this? Regards, Jeff

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next