SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Precious and Base Metal Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (2935)4/5/2002 2:09:45 PM
From: russwinter  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 39344
 
<not a believer in the SUL bulk mine case as of now>

There sure seems to be plenty of sub one gram garbage material there. But, if they start pulling good gram and half intervals and with the high recovery rates indicated, we will quickly have a new ball game. Jim Steele's seems to have a gut feel that this one might work, and I'm still drawn to this prospect. My problem with actually buying it in the short term is all the paper coming out from the four month holds. And they've issued a ton of low priced warrants and options (nearly 9 million). That could create some downside even from here if they keep disappointing. What's your sense of management? And would there really be enough time to still buy cheap if they pull the better holes? I doubt it in this new environment.



To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (2935)4/10/2002 12:04:26 PM
From: tyc:>  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 39344
 
Re NGX

In posting #2935 you raised the idea of "gold equivalence".

For the moment, please assume that I am correct when I say that this year they expect to produce 295,000 ounces of gold AND 84 million lbs of copper. That's 285 lbs of copper for every ounce of gold.

Does that mean that a one cent change in the price of copper is equivalent to a $2.85 change in the price of gold ? (i.e. if we consider only their gold as "production")