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: Claude Cormier who wrote (37011)	3/27/2007 7:25:25 PM
From: loantech	Respond to of 78419

I think both EPM and WGDF can triple from here as they move their EV ounces from a category of explorer/development ounces to producer ounces as per the table I linked and as per the presentation of EPM I just reviewed which presents a similar table. So we both win! <G> You can use the same logic with POM though on costs: <aternatively, using the by-product method whereby revenues from other metals are offset against costs of a primary metal, the five-year average cash cost of copper would be $0.06/lb or, if NorthMet were viewed as a nickel mine, nickel costs would be minus $1.46/lb.> So POM will produce 72 million lbs of copper per year at .06 or 6 cents per lb. BUY POM! Better check my numbers. LOL. But I think they are right. Maybe POM should be a nickel mine because they have negative production costs. After I cash in on a decent run on GGC I will be buying back POM using the same logic you have on EPM. One big difference though. POM needs some permits.