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 : A CANADIAN DIAMOND HUNT -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jpthoma1 who wrote (569)	1/10/2002 8:14:24 PM
From: Valuepro	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 930

About Torngat, you wrote, "4.5 feet, not 4.5 metres." I saw on SH where you mentioned 1 metres. You spoke of this as if a complaint. Actually, the company's Web site indicates Torngat1 as 1-to-4 metres in width. This is typical of the world's producing kimberlite fissure/dyke systems. While you are marginally correct, based on world standards, that Torngat narrows with depth, this is also typical. However, commercial extraction from such occurrences typically extend to around 1,000 metres down. Another thing to consider is that their yields, unlike pipes, tend to be consistent both at depth and along strike. Therefore, and again quite unlike pipes, they tend to be producers over several decades. They are also cheap to mine compared to the typical pipe where costs increase quite dramatically with depth. This is accomplished by mining, say, only the first several metres of material along the length of the system, and starting over again. Also unlike pipes, dykes can be mined in several (or more) locations at once with special emphasis at the "blows." In summary, I don't quite get the same sense in regards to your complaints (both here and on SH) about management, Torngat geology (a "flop," you say), and the lab reports on Freightrain. I could be very wrong, of course, and am open to hearing other of your observations.

To: jpthoma1 who wrote (569)	1/10/2002 10:18:05 PM
From: WillP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 930

I voted against Hermann's salary last year, but it seems that I was the onlyone knowing that Hermann was WORLD BEST PAID JUNIOR PREZ. I don't have a couple of hundred thousand options to forget about this little statistic as members of the board do! You're certainly entitled to vote for or against anything as a shareholder, but you should be aware that the reason that you were the only one that was aware that Hermann was the world's best paid junior president is because he was not the best paid junior president. It took just five minutes to find the following examples of juniors with similar or better paid heads: (Hermann Derbuch, Twin Mining, received a salary of $240,000. A further $10,000 was a perq.) Salaries: Archangel Diamond paid its head, Timpthy Haddon, a salary of $300,190 in 2000, and $298,257 in 1999. There were additional amount paid to him as well. Mountain Province Diamonds Paul Shatzko Chairman 2001 $163,000 2000 $168,000 1999 $160,000 Jan W. Vandersande President 2001 $246,010 2000 $248,117 1999 $254,917 Ashton Mining of Canada paid its head $200,000 in 2000, and splashed nearly $400,000 more among three other execs. Manhattan Minerals paid Gordon Clow $250,000 in 2000, and 320,000 in 1999. Many companies pay their heads as "consultants", paying the cash to a private company owned by the individual. For instance, Canabrava paid Rory Moore $192,000 in this method for 2000. As well, you'll find guys paid $60K or $80K a year. Not bad, but they're head of three or nine different companies at the same time. It adds up. Regards, WillP