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 : Fortune Minerals Limited (TSE - FT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (569)	6/10/2001 6:00:22 PM
From: Dave R. Webb	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 612

Good points Elizabeth. We need to see what the cost structure at Nico is going to be like prior to expressing a view (on production costs). Competitors will produce down to, and occassionaly below cash costs, so we need to know cap costs, plus separately, op costs. Your view that Nico's grade is too low, and that its location means it will be high cost is your view, in comparison to what you understand. I suspect that infrastructure is going to consititute a large part of the cap costs. We have been led to believe that the power costs (a major component of any cap cost) at Nico is going to be lower than that required for Voisey's Bay. We've also been told that the relatively high gold grades at Nico will reduce the over all costs of operations. Until we see the numbers, we don't know. From what we do know, some assumptions (such as high cap costs at Nico) might not be correct. Plus, we're being led to believe that the shallow, outcroping configuration of the mineralization at Nico will lead to reduced operating costs. I guess we'll have to wait to see the numbers. Dave

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (569)	6/12/2001 1:36:57 AM
From: Richnorth	Respond to of 612

Too bad I was away on vacation for the last two weeks or so. Otherwise, I would have replied much sooner. However, I found to my pleasant surprise, upon my return that Dr. Webb had already answered a couple of your questions. It is evident from your negative remarks regarding the viability of FT that you have NOT done your homework. Once again you have put your foot in your mouth. Apparently you have never been to the Far North and have never been aware of the close proximity of a winter ice road, barge water way and of the Snare Hydro Electric complex to FT's property (NICO). In the absence of data from an as yet to be conducted Feasibility Study, it is futile for anyone to give a definitive answer regarding FT's cost of producing cobalt/bismuth/gold. So, at this point in time, I will not venture that FT's cost is going to be in the lowest two quartiles of world production costs. But I am cautiously optimistic about FT's prospects of success. What has escaped your attention is that even though FT's ore is low-grade, the deposit is huge and that such a huge deposit lends itself well to low-cost (hence viable) open-pit operation. Perhaps FT may be so fortunate as to find other Olympic Dam type of (huge) deposits in the foreseeable future. By the way, have you ever heard of the Nansivik Mines in the far North? If you have, I am sure you will begin to see what I am driving at. So, at the end of the day, it seems to me it is not a question whether others know the difference between hot air and flatulence. 'Tis obvious you don't!!! After all, how could you know especially when you have become so inured to your own f's????

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (569)	6/12/2001 9:52:46 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 612

Oops, I made a typo error. It's NANASIVIK, not Nansivik.

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (569)	6/14/2001 4:32:25 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 612

OFF TOPIC??????????? Optimist v. Pessimist --------------------- An optimist sees the best in the world, while a pessimist sees only the worst. An optimist finds the positive in the negative, and a pessimist can only find the negative in the positive. For example, an avid duck hunter was in the market for a new bird dog. His search ended when he found a dog that could actually walk on water to retrieve a duck. Shocked by his find, he was sure none of his friends would ever believe him. He decided to try to break the news to a friend of his, a pessimist by nature, and invited him to hunt with him and his new dog. As they waited by the shore, a flock of ducks flew by. they fired, and a duck fell. The dog responded and jumped into the water. The dog, however, did not sink but instead walked across the water to retrieve the bird, never getting more than his paws wet. This continued all day long; each time a duck fell, the dog walked across the surface of the water to retrieve it. The pessimist watched carefully, saw everything, but did not say a single word. On the drive home the hunter asked his friend, "Did you notice anything unusual about my new dog?" "I sure did," responded the pessimist. "He can't swim."