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 (6318)	4/11/2005 5:14:54 AM
From: Condor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8273

You can only extend a drill program and promo so far. Then you need to develop. And that takes a feasibility and a 100 million dollars. That money is not raised in the retail market. The feasibility is beyond the scope of 98% of geologists. They do not have the education, or the software or the experience. The usual people in the companies know only the basics, not even what is needed from the engineers, the real financiers of mining projects and the earth itself for economics. If you pick a company with a different, i.e. development strategy, that knows how to mine and mill and knows the difference, no matter the history that is perceived, 99% of the people will not know how to asses that. I can asses that right from the get go with the character and flavour of their announcements. Do they have a mineable resource? Do they know what one is per tonnage of resource? Is it feasible possibly by infrastructure logistics? Do their announcements and private admissions reflect that strategy of develop towards production? Do they have an idea how much that will cost? Do they have in house expertise? Are the board, engineers or brokers? The rest is easy. If the mining company has infrastructure and says they will mine and sounds serious, and is not a pack of liars then you can invest for a long term for smallish but far more certain gains. Guyana Goldfields and Roxmark are two such companies that know how to a degree and will develop. Guyana is not so experiences in the executive proper but have the consultative capacity. Roxmark has the most experienced hands on board of any company I know of. Some other companies have miners on board but they are not serious about mining. All the names I hear from time to time don't impress. No real intent. Given the above, I maintain that AUA will not produce in the forseeable future. What say you? C

To: E. Charters who wrote (6318)	4/12/2005 2:12:47 PM
From: marcos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 8273

The politics of Mulatos ejido were actually quite simple, and never worried me ... the dispute came from thirteen ejidatarios only, out of sixty-five, the rest were in favour of the mine, and the sooner the better ... the thirteen just wanted more money, a few hundreds thousands, so it wasn't a make-or-break difference in costs anyway ... the progress of the suit through the courts did take time, but organising company structure and financing the mine was taking near as much time, so there was not much loss in the whole thing The name of Chester Millar pretty much gave the geology of it a stamp of approval, to me ... so i never had much doubt in that regard, nor in competence of the company to build a mine, because he'd always done it before ... with Afton he finessed both Teck and the NDP, that was brilliant, after all the worrying days it took to resolve, everything he said came true ... i might have been a little too reliant on this, come to hindsight, but it happened to work out