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 : Golden Eagle Int. (MYNG) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (30591)	2/23/2003 5:01:49 PM
From: ubetcha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Claude, "They could decide to prove reserves because there are methods (although expensive if not very expensive) to do it including processing thousands of mini-bulk samples all over the property. But that is not what they say in their business plan." This is one part that I do not understand. If in two-two 1/2 years they get 10 plants operating, and are pulling earth (ore) from several parts of each location, why does this not in itself prove reserves? As each plant comes on line in the long term scheme of things, the "older plants will be pulling ore from differing layers of the area that they are sampling (mining!). If I have a lake, and I pull water from 10 different locations and multiple depths and all is foul, is it not conceivable that I would say that the entire lake has the same degree (%) of foul? The way that I see it is that once they get a number of plants going, and they all yield certain grades of gold, that it is possible to assess reserves for the area. This to me would "end up with enough samples to statistically prove that there are a specific (large) number of ounces in a specific area of the property." Makes sense to me, but then I am not a mine statistician! Is that kind of like a lawyer? Terry

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (30591)	2/23/2003 5:26:37 PM
From: Ironyman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Claude....Why haven't you done any DD? All you would have to do is call down to Bolivia! With a couple of phone calls, you would have the jump on all of the press releases and could be TTs other Bartender, but you are a "Lazy ARSE"

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (30591)	2/23/2003 5:53:07 PM
From: Douglas Lapp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

By proving Reserves,It will be easier for us to raise the necessary funds to expedite the Business plan. Why do Mining Companies prove Reserves at all? Using your thought process makes it silly for Barricks, Newmont and all the others to prove anything, since they only need production for valuation and expansion funding. Sorry Claude that does not sound sensible.

To: Claude Cormier who wrote (30591)	2/25/2003 12:28:38 PM
From: ge-believer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 34075

Claude, you say that GE had "not enough samples" to claim reserves persuant to the SEC Guide 7. But the SEC did not make that argument in court, and you haven't even seen the study. The SEC did argue that an American company should not be pemitted to rely upon a Bolivian geologist. THAT seems to have been their complaint with the 1998 study, in which proven reserves were claimed. Still, your point about the number of samples is often made, just not by those familiar with the study. You have given us some idea of the numbers typically required, but that number must depend greatly on the sample size (500# in this case), and consistency of results, and on how the results were used in calculating reserves. It seems to me that this kind of analysis would have to be done by a mathematician, like Guido, rather than a geologist.