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 : Manhattan Minerals (MAN.T) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (2484)	6/24/1999 10:47:00 AM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4504

<< Is it true that to mine this, if the deposit is there, they have to move the town or not disturb the town. >> First Eliz... the deposit is there. Second, they have two alternatives regarding the town.. 1) Relocate 2) Go underground MAN has build excellent community relatiions at TG. Most of the locals are pro-mining. They have 3 years to finalize a plan that will respect the community rights and wishes. <<Have you looked at the sliding scale royalty on this property. Good deal for the vendors I would say. >> Given the size, everybody will benefit. SInce the vendors are a governement agency, we can say that MAN has a strong and well-connected partner. << Don't you think the oxidized cap is small and may not support a mine? >> Not at all. So far 5-6M tons of 7g/t of gold equivalent for 1-1.2M ounces. Very near surface. Excellent infrastructure with easy access. (we are not in the Andes here. This is likely to grow. IMO, the receipe for an operation that could produce 150,000 ounces a year for 5 years at a cost near $125-$150, possibly lower. Therefore strong and unexpected cash flows. This cap is a bonus. But why that question... the big payback is the VMS deposit underneath...