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 to Z Junior Mining Research Site -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (413)	6/29/2002 5:42:41 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5423

voy.to - do you think maybe Viceroy's reclamation provision will be more than necessary to cover costs? ... it goes this way sometimes, also it can go the other way .... scarey thing, shutting down mines .... lots of shares out, and they just did a 15-cent financing [why, one wonders, they had already 9.2 millions in 'free cash', i.e. other than that set aside for reclamation ... and no debt] .... but yes, worth watching for sure ... i do remember management being spoken of a few years ago as responsible swm.v - had any recent looks at Sherwood, Elizabeth? ... those results looked better than the market treatment of them, i figured, considering that they were the very first pokes, it's quite early in the story ... swm's controlling shareholder Miramar mae.to just had their AGM, some impressive old mining names here - cnniw.yellowbrix.com;

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (413)	6/30/2002 1:45:54 AM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5423

thanks Liz. Little joe

To: Elizabeth Andrews who wrote (413)	7/1/2002 12:55:19 AM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 5423

So fess up. Who is your insider in Vice? If you are touting, do you have Vice shares? Or do you know how to decode their annual? Is this another CM Seltzer blind play, that may go up or down, or is there a property hanging in Argentia? I doubt if they will restart any of their mines. They have to have debt too. I suspect that the Brewery Creek OP had metallurgical/recovery problems. Bio-leach generally do. Bounty had problems too and needed some kind of retuning which needed capital investment. In other words their cash flow was imaginary by the end of 2001. Castle is exhausted from the sounds of it. Trouble with these smallish open pit situations is that if they have difficult metallurgy and smallish grade (.03) they have very little contingency margin. In fact their operating cost figures are probably Enron, or they would not grind to a halt at low gold prices, needing money. We saw this in Eastmaque, how always said they were getting 75% recovery and in the end tried to hire a PhD metallurgist to solve their recovery problems after refinancing about 5 times as they mined the thing out. Were did Eastmaque's tenth of an ounce go? It should have made them 50 million dollars minus capital and operation. So they spent 20 million in capital right off. <sarcasm>Good</sarcasm> move. They they got less than 50% recovery. Bad move. EC<:-}