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 : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldcat who wrote (16507)	7/18/2006 10:52:36 AM
From: Robin Plunder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78410

I agree that the situation favors aqi, and the market seemed to sense that, as aqi stock generally trended higher over the last year while imr was stagnant. The value of aqi, if this ruling holds up, would seem to be very high. There are 300 million ounces of silver already identified, plus 3 billion pounds of lead ( I believe), and they have done very little drilling yet on Loma de la Plata, which should add considerably to these amounts. On top of that aqi has their existing gold activities at vein 49 and the new find at castro sur, and have a large land package that has not been explored and probably contains a number of other attractive deposits to be discovered....seems unlikely that this huge silver deposit occurs in absence of other significant mineralization in the area. One wonders if aqi will just buy imr....probably less expensive at this point than paying for the cost of work done at the Navidad site? This would also avoid any future litigation issues. Is argentina favorable for mining? Chubut recently banned mining south and west of aqi, due to concerns about pollution and damage to scenic/resort areas in the mountains, I believe...what is the chance of unfavorable legislation affecting aqi? Robin

To: goldcat who wrote (16507)	7/18/2006 5:15:44 PM
From: E. Charters	Respond to of 78410

"No reasonable vendor would provide information outside the restricted area ... if that information would not ... be treated as confidential," Judge Koenigsberg found. This echoes what Justice Holland said about (paraphrased here) "the balance of probabilities favouring the vendor reasonably holding its information to be confidential" in the Hemlo suit. This would indicate that the appeal based on the judge's interpretation of the scope of the confidentiality will probably be fruitless, as it runs counter to both case law and parole evidence, i.e. industry practice. EC<:-}