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: Claude Cormier who wrote (2495)	6/24/1999 11:38:00 AM
From: TheBusDriver	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4504

<<can you try to see the positives in a stock >> You are wasting your time CC. Since liz likes to discuss Christianity: I think it is called "Casting perals before swine" Stock is recovering pretty nice right now....wonder if Liz has covered yet? let alone REALLY short this stock....nobody is that foolish!

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (2495)	6/24/1999 11:47:00 AM
From: TheBusDriver	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4504

MAN 6.3x6.4 117k volume....looks to have found some pretty good support at this level.....I am impressed, I did think we might clear $6....time to load up for the next news buying spree??? I know CC....not your style...how about you Howy? Anybody? wayne

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (2495)	6/24/1999 10:14:00 PM
From: Elizabeth Andrews	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4504

Well Claude, the positives are a wonderful thing but it's just not the real world to just focus on your bias. First, even if this "deposit" gets to 60 m tons its still too small to attract a major. I understand that majors are looking for deposits that can be mined in high volumes through many price cycles. This doesn't appear to be one of those. Second, I read the disclosure with respect to past metallurgy and it was not positive at all and raised several big red flags for me. For example, the preliminary metallurgical testing undertaken by BRGM indicated fine grained pyrite. As you know most fine grained sulfide systems are usually more expensive to process. It usually means that all the sulfides in the system are fined grained and this usually complicates things. In addition, the chalcopyrite occurs within pyrite grains and intergranularly. It also occurs as exsolution blebs in the sphalerite. Third, preliminary floatation tests indicated that copper and zinc concentrates could be reasonably produced. Now what does "reasonably produced" mean from a scientist? Is that an economic concept of any value? No, it's lousy disclosure in my view. Fourth, additional tests were done....and these showed that finer grinding (about 20 microns) would be necessary for good recovery of metal values by differential floatation. Now what does "good recovery" mean? From a scientist? Surely as in most metallurgical studies they would come up with a number, such as the copper recovery is 80% or whatever. But no, something very vague is given. By the way, maybe you could share with us how big 20 microns is and how much smaller that is, as a grind, than most mines. I think 20 microns is very, very, very, very fine. Fifth, they did polished thin section work so they must have some idea of the what the mineral relationships are within the gangue, don't you think? And this BS about not assaying for gold, well that's the last straw. I can just see the scientist looking at the thin sections and saying, jeez that kind of looks like gold but since they haven't assayed for it, it can't be gold so I'm not saying anything about it. Or maybe, worse case, the gold is encapsulted and even though it may assay it can't be liberated without enormous expense by way of very fine grinding and processing. And, because this is a complex deposition with at least three primary ores indicated, which concentrate does the gold report to? This may apply to the leached cap where the recoveries may be very low given a 3/4" crush. Sixth, there's going to be more than one concentrate as well and the mineralisation mix looks like it changes quite dramatically through the pile. Let's hear the rest of the positives? Oh, and seventh, Manhattan is required to meet two qualifying conditions prior to exercising the option. The Company must operate a mine that has an average treatment capacity of 10k tonnes per day and it must have net assets of $100 million. Where are they going to get this mine of 10,000 tonnes per day so they can qualify. Do you know of any trainer mines around so management can cut their teeth? I'll bet there's a finders fee in it if you do. Eight and last, I'm sad to say, is the net assets of $100 million condition. This one should be easy as there is no definition of what this means in the glossary.