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: james flannigan who wrote (4786)	11/22/2006 7:26:37 PM
From: Bloomfield	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 16205

James, I'm a geologist too, and I would like to know if Patrick Evans is willing to go on the public record, and confirm diamond values cited by Dr. Goldie in his report. Under NI 43-101 regulations, it is illegal for an officer or director of a company to make forward looking statements, even in confidence. If Patrick Evans is doing this, he is in violation of the law. I would also like to point out, James, that Dr. Goldie is not a "qualified person" in the legal sense of the definition, for the evaluation of this kimberlite property. If Patrick Evans is telling you that these diamond values are in fact accurate, he should have no trouble making a public statement to that effect. The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) have developed a rule called National Instrument 43-101 which governs how issuers can disclose scientific and technical information about mineral projects to the public. "NI 43-101" is administered by the provincial securities commissions, and covers verbal and written communications (including documents and websites). In general it requires that any disclosure be based on advice from a "qualified person" (QP) who must, in some cases, be independent of the issuer and the property. Yours truly, Bloomfield

To: james flannigan who wrote (4786)	11/22/2006 8:06:02 PM
From: WillP	Respond to of 16205

James: Once again, and for the last time: I have figured out the revenue vs. model numbers. See here: Message 23024321 Everyone here is privy to the latest public data. De Beers modelled a value of $75 (U.S.) per carat in 2005. WWW modelled a diamond value of $78 (U.S.) per carat, based on a 10-per-cent improvement due to cleaning, and an approximate 8-per-cent decline in average diamond prices by mid-2006. Mountain Province's own web site lists a modelled value of $83 (U.S.) per carat. I'll leave you to worry about the source for that figure, but it's not materially different from the other figures. The De Beers revenue figure works out to $114 Canadian per carat, which translates to $101 (U.S.) per carat, which would be net of marketing I assume, or about $111 (U.S.) per carat gross diamond value. That figure applies to 2011 or 2012, take your pick. Inflating $83 (U.S.) per carat by 5 per cent compounded annually, you get $111 (U.S.) per carat. It all works out. As for the "Mountain Province faces Gahcho Kue delay", the comments stem from the MVEIRB representative. As the article noted, "De Beers is keeping mum about the issue. Its president, Jim Gowans, ducked the matter, suggesting it was more appropriate to talk to Mountain Province about the project. Mountain Province, which of course gets all its information from De Beers, was not answering its phone." I gave Mr. Evans the opportunity to offer his spin a few days later, once he sorted out his answering machine. I would be more concerned about what some might judge selective disclosure. I'm sure all are aware that companies can not selectively disclose material information, and I have no reason to believe Mr. Evans is selectively telling anyone that the Gahcho Kue diamonds have a markedly higher value than is listed on the company's own Web site, in its news releases, or on the web site of its partner. I'll address the second part of your post separately. Regards, WillP

To: james flannigan who wrote (4786)	11/22/2006 8:21:33 PM
From: WillP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16205

But to say diamonds can't double in 10 yrs is the liken to living in a plastic bubble. LOL. I would never say that. I marvelled at human nature during the dot-com craze less than a decade ago, and recall reading of tulipmania in the Netherlands several centuries ago. Prices will be whatever people want them to be. If that's your theory, screw geology, look at it rationally: ASSUME: Prices double by 2011. ASSUME: Diavik, Gahcho Kue and Star are at least marginally economic at current diamond prices. THEREFORE: Any price increase will be "pure cash flow". QUESTION: Who gets more? Mountain Province will have annual production of 0.36 x 3 million = 1.08 million carats, or about 0.02 carat per share. Doubling $83, the highest modelled figure, would get you an extra $1.66 in cash flow per share. Aber's share of Diavik production in 2011 will be 0.40 x 9 million carats, or 3.6 million carats, or just over 0.06 carat per share. Doubling $95 would get you an extra $5.89 in cash flow per share. Shore's theoretical plan for Star is a 50,000-TPD mine at a grade of 0.15 carat per tonne. That works out to 2.6 million carats per year, or 0.015 carat per share. Doubling $135 would get you an extra $2.03 in cash flow per share. Shore also has to build a billion dollar mine somehow, without adding to its share tally. That won't happen. QUESTION: What happens if we finally get a recession, and diamond prices are 10 per cent lower in 2011, with prices 25 per cent higher? Regards, WillP