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 : Corner Bay Silver (BAY.T) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: loantech who wrote (2007)	11/12/2001 11:46:20 PM
From: Claude Cormier	Respond to of 4409

<A few months back, July 2001, you indicated that Bay still needed surface rights. Have they acquired them? > I spoke to them about this in early fall and the process was well engaged with most of the critical surface rights already acquired. I don't know the status as of we speak. <BAY re Minefinders> MFL is great for gold and silver. But it is more gold than silver. Bay is 83% silver. So BAY will be the real silver play. MFL is not attractive on a takeover with $275 gold $4 silver I think. But things are improving with the new assays on silver. When gold moves above $300 and silver above $5.. MFL will shine cause the deposit will start to have a better IRR for potential suitors. BAY's deposit is unique in the sense that the high grade can be mined in the early years generating huge cash flows and very fast (within a year) payback. This (and lower capex) cause the rate of return to be 2X the rate of return of MFL. <Any reasons that you think minefinders could be better than Bay? > No. I prefer BAY for now. But MFL is very high on my list. Cause when both gold and silver are in a bull market above $300 and $5, then MFL will be a top performer, along with BAY... but not until then. BAY on the other can move to $5 in the next 12 months even if silver stays between $4 and $5. On the other hand ,if they (MFL) discover another deposit at El Malacate, the current focus of their exploration efforts, then MFL could move ahead of BAY. <Also are the ounces more economical for BAY than Minefinders and if so why? > Yes they are. The structure and continuity of the deposit make a big difference. As well, the location of the high grade starter pit and the lower capex. P.S I define profitability as the rate of return of the project. Also consider that BAY is at feasibility study level and will be in a position to take a production decision witin 6 months. MFL still has a lot of exploration to do before it reached this level. One positive for MFL... It is known south of the border and can be purchased in the US. I like both, I owned both. But BAY wins hands down in my book, at least while the current conditions remain the same.

To: loantech who wrote (2007)	11/13/2001 7:44:11 AM
From: russwinter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4409

<MFL vs BAY> I own good size positions of both. On a valuation basis both are very inexpensive. Right now BAY has a better starter pit, and an earlier payback than MFL. Over the life of the mine, MFL looks to be more economical. Plus MFL's Delores is a bigger, more expandable deposit and is one of the few in the world that meets the "tooth fairy" size thresholds of the majors. BAY has a unique position in the public market however, as it is a rarity: an advanced stage pure silver play that has good economics. MFL's silver appeal is probably also getting some market play now? BAY going it alone to develop a mine has to be of some concern. We have too many examples of where small undercapitalized miners get into quick trouble taking that route. The likely exit strategy of MFL is what I prefer: takeover, or carried to production JV. And besides, they just sent me a cool cap.