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 : The Molybdenum Discussion Board -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pogbull who wrote (1755)	3/1/2006 7:41:18 PM
From: rnsmth	Respond to of 3267

my first GPXM buy was @ .143.I have added at .24 and .30. Frankly, I'd welcome a dip as an opportunity to add some more shares-and maybe add without a dip, but I suspect there could be a dip between now and the issuing of the final permit / bringing out and milling the 1000 ton sample. This is when the share price will go up considerably - mining company valuation changes when they start bringing it out of the ground and turning it to cash. I am anticipating that day for GPXM. I hope we can say - we ain't seen nothing yet.

To: pogbull who wrote (1755)	3/2/2006 12:13:57 AM
From: Sittin_on_my_yaya	Respond to of 3267

Can you respond to this? Obviously from an AUA Fan. <I truly wish you all the best on GPXM and perhaps we all can make a buck here. I notice that he references AUA and it's employee, Ken Reser. He doesn't mention that AUA doesn't need to fill even one truck, it's all open pit. -- but does give the inference that it will be trucked. Also the question of sulphides, uranium and lead are not addressed and should be in a moly mine. The cost per lb. is mnetioned no where and they sould have an independeant engineers report to substantiate it. News letter writers are calling Ken of AUA on a regular basis for advice. Also 40% of GPXM's project is owned by a man in Toronto, so GPMX is getting 60% profit from a truck load. No mention of that either. BLE is another widely touted moly stock but there is another whole demension to that story which is not reaching investors. My son live within 3 miles of that project. ---- and while they may have 8% moly, is he suggesting that is over the whole ore body? or just a vien?? Has the resource been drilled in order to accurately define it?? So many inanswered questions. I would be suprised to see AUA around in it's present form in 4 mos.>

To: pogbull who wrote (1755)	3/2/2006 12:14:56 AM
From: Sittin_on_my_yaya	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3267

Can you respond to this? Obviously from an AUA Fan. <I truly wish you all the best on GPXM and perhaps we all can make a buck here. I notice that he references AUA and it's employee, Ken Reser. He doesn't mention that AUA doesn't need to fill even one truck, it's all open pit. -- but does give the inference that it will be trucked. Also the question of sulphides, uranium and lead are not addressed and should be in a moly mine. The cost per lb. is mnetioned no where and they sould have an independeant engineers report to substantiate it. News letter writers are calling Ken of AUA on a regular basis for advice. Also 40% of GPXM's project is owned by a man in Toronto, so GPMX is getting 60% profit from a truck load. No mention of that either. BLE is another widely touted moly stock but there is another whole demension to that story which is not reaching investors. My son live within 3 miles of that project. ---- and while they may have 8% moly, is he suggesting that is over the whole ore body? or just a vien?? Has the resource been drilled in order to accurately define it?? So many inanswered questions. I would be suprised to see AUA around in it's present form in 4 mos.>