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: mineman who wrote (2649)	6/29/1999 2:25:00 PM
From: Claude Cormier	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 4504

Mineman, A premature evaluation, IMO. I suggest you wait until in-fills comes in. What is you definition of erratic. Have you computed the standard deviation on the grades and intercepts? I don't see this as erratic just because there are 3 values below .1opt. As for the cost you attribute to the relocation of the town, it is non-event. Cause if they move the town, it will be because they will mine the sulfides which are 8 times larger than the oxidized gold cap. I agree that 4:1 strip ratios are on the high side, but 1.5:1 are below the average. SO again, we should wait until more in-fill is done and final evaluation are in. I think the ratio will be on the low side as they will strip off the entire 18 meters. Considering the gold cap alone and the existence of the town partially above the deposit, you may be right that the IRR will not be enough to justify a gold operation... but who cares. The gold cap will produce gold only if the sulfides project has the green light. As such, it will be a pure bonus.