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 : Twin Mining (formerly Twin-Gold) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Letmebe Frank who wrote (217)	2/6/2002 11:11:56 PM
From: WillP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 613

I'm not sure what your question is, Frank. You're quoting from two separate things. One is my Street Wire. (Thanks for locating that Derbuch quote, by the way. It was $25 US, or $40 Canadian, as i thought, but I still think that's a bit optimistic. The second thing you're quoting is my repsonse to VAUGHN's hypothesis, which used 0.225 carat per tonne and something like $250 (currency unknown). Keep playing with the numbers, in different combinations and you get different stories, any of which might be valid. The Street Wire numbers of required values are still A-OK from my perspective. That won't change until the actual results are out. As for Nanisivik, I'm not sure what will be usable at Jackson Inlet. I could see using Nanisivik as a base, rather than moving everything over there. It all depends upon how large an operation would be required at Jackson, how suitable it would be for deep water shipping, etc. I wonder if the environmental cost of site cleanup wouldn't make moving stuff from Nanisivik a poor choice. In any case, worrying about that is a bit premature. Regards, WillP