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 : Century Mining Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John McCarthy who wrote (336)	1/17/2007 7:27:49 PM
From: FreedomForAll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 545

Just when you thought it was safe to come out from under your desk, management snatches defeat from the very jaws of victory. Longs' best hope is that this is truly an extreme under estimate of production and the near future will hold upside surprises that raise the share price into the mid single digits (on the left side of the decimal point.) Tired of learning patience.

To: John McCarthy who wrote (336)	1/17/2007 11:45:13 PM
From: Golden Nugget	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 545

Hey John, Thx for your thoughts/comments. As you suggest, I should pick up the phone & call CMM. I don't know what I should expect to learn, given their credibility problems, but at the same time they're making some money? I just reviewed their annual $/Vol graph & while it looks like a smooth sliding tobogan ride, I was surprised to see that last year's run up began at today's prices. My trading started in '96, & I've battled tough times. I'm happy being back on top, & even happier that only about 5% of my position is in CMM. I don't know Margaret Kent? I know she once led Royal Oak. I suspect she didn't get to that point in her career without having some balls. I doubt she's liking the fact so many are squeezing her nuts. In short, I think we should be ready for a surprise. Why sell into weakness at this point? Nugget

To: John McCarthy who wrote (336)	1/18/2007 5:34:45 PM
From: hubris33	Respond to of 545

Hi John, Due to your heads up, I took a look at that NR again and decide to parse it every which way. <g> Capital expenditures for the Sigma-Lamaque Complex in 2007 are expected to total C$3.0 million, with a further $8.0 million estimated for deferred stripping and mine development. Regarding exploration in Canada in 2007, the Company has budgeted C$0.5 million, which will focus mainly on the Lamaque Underground Mine. I see what you are saying about the "deferred stripping." As Clinton might say, it all depends on what the definition of "is", is. <ggg> In this case it looks like a key might be "mine development." What the heck does that mean? What is the difference between CapEx and "mine development?" If "mine development" means getting waste out of the Sigma pit, then that $8MM sounds pretty bad. On the other hand if "mine development" has something to do with costs for Lamaque underground then such costs wouldn't be a bad thing. I don't recall, are pre-production costs on a mine deferrable? Is it possible that some of the Lamaque u/g costs would be "capitalized" and apportioned to ounces as production occurs? Can they do that? That said, if "mine development" does mean Lamaque u/g costs why place it after "deferred stripping?" Its placement there sure makes it look like an appendage or less important. Sure looks curious... But you make another good point. It does not matter if CMM capitalizes the $8MM or not they will still spend the cash in reality (labor, fuel, materials) and thus the expenditures should effect real cash on hand, real cash flow? That might be something to watch, unless CMM has some way to defer payment to the time periods where the expense is taken off the balance sheet. Keep that keen eye of yours focused on CMM! We need someone watching them like a hawk! H3