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 (2992)	7/10/1999 8:14:00 PM
From: Bruce Robbins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4504

>>What do I conclude about Manhattan?<< I would conclude that the jury is still out on TG-3. We have learned the hard way from the past, that we should never rely on visual information (e.g. Cartaway). The fact that there are greater than 100 meter intervals of sulfide mineralization in TG-3 holes 3, 4, 5 is significant, but inconclusive because these sections have not been assayed. We can only speculate as to what the copper, zinc, lead, silver and gold content of these intersections are. We do not have a clear definition of what is meant by "sulphide interval" (e.g. do they include all material that has more than 1% sulfide, 10% sulfide). I wouldn't even want to attempt a resource calculation with TG-3. I am anticipating, based on my technical experience, holes 4 and 5 on TG-3 should have results comparable or better than TG-1 - meaning we should expect an average of 2% copper and 1.5% zinc. I say better because the release states "Holes 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 bottomed in chalcopyrite/pyrite mineralized stockwork". This type of mineralization us usually found near the VMS vent where the copper and zinc grades are higher and the "ore" is thicker in producing mines. Around holes 4 and 5 I can easily imagine 10 million tonnes. I would also conclude that TG-1 represents an interesting resource which is presently underneath a town- that means that until further notice from the Government of Peru that the town is moving, TG-1 will remain a resource. I would further conclude that a large proportion of the gravity anomalies on the Tambo Grande property represent sulfide lenses. There are probably several sulfide lenses that do not have associated gravity anomalies as well- they will probably lie near to the TG-1 to TG-3 structural trend. There exists enormous potential as a result of these unknowns. Manhattan has a lot of exploration to do on a fantastic property. They have only scratched the surface. >>Based on all the excellent information you have shared with us, is it going to be grade and recovery driven?<< It is going to be the grade and the tonnage that count. Always remember the grade x tonnage x price = in situ value. If MAN can get high grade and tonnage, they don't have to worry too much about the price. The recoveries in TG-3 should be standard. >>Would the grades of the mine in Manitoba be economic today as a startup operation?<< Remeber the grade x tonnage x price = in situ value. If I have great grades but no tonnage, I make no metal. The in situ value of the Ruttan Mine: 45.5 million tonnes @ 1.47% Cu and 1.61% Zn gives 668,850,000 kg Cu and 732,550,000 kg Zn or 1,474,814,250 lbs Cu and 1,615,272,750 lbs Zn assuming a present Cu price of US$0.65 and Zn price of US$0.50 US$1,766,265,638 in situ value. I would imagine that a mining company would still be interested in extracting part of 1.76 billion dollars US <g>. I would say that it would still be economic as a startup. And of course, the Ruttan Mine is ONE sulfide lens.