Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Winspear Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sudhir Khanna who wrote (21152)	6/19/1999 6:31:00 PM
From: Berry Picker	Respond to of 26850

THANK-YOU We will direct others to this post.- And again. THANK-YOU

To: Sudhir Khanna who wrote (21152)	6/19/1999 6:34:00 PM
From: Rocket Red	Respond to of 26850

Thank-You Sudhir PS Comments on Per opening Monday Morning. Care to take a Stab at it. Thanks Red

To: Sudhir Khanna who wrote (21152)	6/19/1999 7:42:00 PM
From: teevee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26850

Sudhir, I would appreciate your comment on the following: 1. A review of the CF data to date reveals that the CF results around Pit#1 andPit#4(just reported) are about 50% or less than elsewhere in the kimberlite sheet... 2. Of all areas and drill holes where CF results have been performed to date, it appears that "mother nature" dealt Winspear a cruel hand around Pit#1 and the adjacent Pit#4.... 3. Although the average value per carat for pit#1 and pit#2 were previously reported as $US301.00/per carat, CF results suggest that the implied value per tonne for pit #1 and Pit #4 should conservatively be about 50% or half the average value per tonne in Pit#2 and (hopefully) Pit#3.... 4. If the average value per tonne for pit#4(~$180.00) represents 50% of the anticipated value of Pit#3($~US360/tonne) the average between Pit#3 and Pit#4 should come in at about $270/tonne..... This following is what I would like your comment on: a. I believe, based upon the CF results, that Pit#1 is an aberation in grade and Winspear was unlucky in that they ended up with that location(CF results appear fairly uniform elsewhere). b. Increasing sample size adjacent to each pit will increase confidence in modeling grade in relation to CF results etc... c. This is the big question....although performing a bulk adjacent to Pit#1 in addition to a bulk sample adjacent to Pit#2 is obviously a more rigourous and conservative geotechnical approach, in the context of developing a grade prediction model based upon CF results, why couldn't the area around Pit #1 be excluded from mine plans until after payout? and if the area around Pit#1 is an abberation in terms of grade and implied value per tonne, perhaps the results, in relation to CF data, from Pit#2 and Pit#3 are more representative of the kimberlite sheet as a whole? This would imply that we could reasonably expect an implied value per tonne of $US360.00 per tonne instead of an average of $270.00/per tonne...... Other comments.....interestingly, pit#2 & Pit#3 lie on the axis of injection or the axis of thicker kimberlite.....this suggest to me that the thicker portions of the sheet also have good grade, implied value per tonne etc.... Winspear looks more and more like a screaming buy to me.....TIA regards, teevee