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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Winter in the Great White North -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E. Charters who wrote (5080)	9/17/2003 9:45:19 AM
From: Dave R. Webb	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 8273

The measured and indicated resource grades 10.5 gpt, or 0.306 ounces per ton. A ramp requires less specialized equipment, and can be installed incrementally. It would be less practical to have a shaft sunk to say 500 feet, and then expanded to 1000 feet than have a ramp installed in such a manner. Additionally, operating a shaft while deepening it is not unusual these days (the Robertson Shaft for example), but it typically requires shutting down or limiting production while deepening. The capital costs (and cost of capital) for a junior favors ramp development. Another factor to consider is development of mining properties often moves from discovery, resource development, scoping studies, prefeasibility , feasibility, mine development production. Steps can be skipped (with caution) or added, and a certain amount of overlap often occurs. It would not be unusual to have a ramp installed during prefeasibility studies, but it would be unusual to have a shaft sunk for this. With small cap companies, this is often an over-riding factor. Dave