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 : Canadian Diamond Play Cafi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chas. who wrote (1578)	11/12/2003 10:27:15 AM
From: WillP	Respond to of 16206

great post Will, thanks for that analysis. And Thank you. IMO the smartest MPV move in 8 years was VanDersande just recently getting DeBeers to agree to a study to evaluate the study of the possibility of a feasibility study, brilliant move and piece of PR and it shows in the stock price......... That was my impression of the announcement. (It was actually a decision to study the merits of conducting a prefeasibility study, I believe.) IMO MPV could most likely be a producing diamond mine of average economics, however, DeBeers, IMO, sees the lower tonnage involved and something about Diamond value that they are not talking about as reason to postpone moving ahead with Kennady Lake.......... It's a complicated situation. Mind you, Victor isn't going to come cheaply, if at all, but it did seem to leap ahead of Kennady in the priority chart. I say "seem" because perceptions can quickly change yet again. I suspect Victor and Snap Lake are their top priorities and will remain so for awhile. One man's "seem" is another man's "suspect". [grin] De Beers makes money off selling diamonds as well as mining them, so there could be advantages of pressing ahead with Kennady as well. However, De Beers has the marketing rights to all the diamonds at Kennady in any case, and that complicates things further, I would think. As things stand now, MPV has to ultimately pay back its share of the construction costs, so the net result of a buyout is that De Beers would have to pay all of the costs and the purchase price of the takeover, but it wouldn't get to market any more diamonds. With Snap Lake, De Beers had to buy out Winspear to get its share of the diamonds, and it subsequently had to buy out Aber, which retained the marketing rights to its share of the diamonds. There is not sufficent motivation to move DeBeers off a holding pattern.......... You could be right. Speculators think otherwise. (Oops: Well, half of them do. For every seller, there's a buyer.) as you say ...Time will tell. Precisely. thanks for your post... And thanks for yours, Regards, WillP